Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2025, 08:58:46 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 08, 2025, 07:44:54 PMSorry, 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.*

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 08, 2025, 08:58:46 PMA 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.

Right. That's why I was specific that I wasn't trying to talk about that single example. It seems to me that her attitude was being used to argue more broadly against characters like the portly Klingon restaurateur.

One thing that comes across over time is that Worf himself is both atypical (raised by humans, Starfleet Officer) and a "Klingon's Klingon" in that he embraces the IDEALS of the species, not the reality that a Klingon raised in the culture would.  This is why he's different from Kurn (his brother), Gowron, and the rest.  I also think it's why Martok is so fond of him.

The 2e Book of Humanoids has a fair share of the reasons why some races are out and about is because they are going against steryotypes. Others just muddle through trying to make way in civilized lands, or overcome old habits.

Lizard men were one of the more alien of the races as they had very different outlooks and reactions. Gnolls coming in close second on the unhuman-scale.

Funny thing about Gnolls.

In my original (1e) campaign, early 90s, a Paladin PC (who led with his chin) got killed.  Party was unable to get a Raise Dead/Resurrection spell, they used a Druid to do Reincarnate.  He came back as a gnoll. 

This being 1e, they weren't demonic, just feral hyena-men.  And so the reincarnated PC went about trying to convert/redeem as many gnolls to the cause of good as he could.

Years later, when we reincarnated the campaign, gnolls had been changed to demon-spawn, and it kind of unhinged the whole plotline...

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:31:49 PM

Quote from: Jaeger on February 03, 2025, 05:03:13 PMThe Legend Sandy Petersen speaking Truth to Power on twiX:

https://x.com/SandyofCthulhu/status/1886518107407310855

Quote"In a pick up game of Runequest c. 1985*, a woman played a dwarf (the race). I made some mention that her PC was short and she took umbrage. "That's racist! My dwarf is tall and willowy!"

Puzzled I asked why she played a dwarf if she wanted to be like that. She (and her husband) doubled down, agreeing it was racism to assume stereotypes about a non-human.

I argued briefly, then went on with the game but seriously? THERE IS NO REASON TO PLAY A NONHUMAN EXCEPT TO USE STEREOTYPES.

If you want a non-stereotypical PC, be human. It's what we're for."

He's right.

I suspect the woman in the example was off-base, though I'd want to hear her side of the story. I disagree about the general principle, though. I'm more often annoyed by non-human PCs is that the players just play them as stereotypes instead of as part of a broad species and society that is different than humans.

For example, in my last Middle Earth game, I had ten pregen PCs who were all dwarves. I think they all represented parts of Tolkien's dwarven traditions, but they were also all different from each other. Part of what I wanted to dispel is how all dwarves are centered on the single character of Gimli - i.e. beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners with a Scottish accent. The dwarf PCs come from many different rungs of society - an idealistic scholar, a two-fisted brawler, a trouble-making young princess, a charismatic queen, etc.

One of my favorite PCs ever was from a GURPS Fantasy game in grad school, where there was a new Roman Empire after a weird time-looping magic apocalypse that included elves and dwarves. I played a Romanized elf who was an enthusiastic convert to Roman culture, who despised the tree-hugging ways of his fellow elves as backwards hicks. His name was Antonius Publius Eldarus, and he frequently cited Roman philosophy in contrast to barbarians like the Gauls, Celts, and elves.

that's awesome! But in a way you're still playing with stereotypes. Just inverting them, you're playing against "It".
I agree with op insofar as that when you play a non human you have to address the stereotype, by either conforming, rejecting or even falling in between the two. All Is fine and nice and makes for good rp material imo.
But it's there.
Pretending it's not Is schizo. Dunno if that's what the woman was doing, maybe She meant to say "not all dwarfs Need to be XYZ" but lacking vocabulary just blurted out abt fairy racism.
Also, protesting if somebody's dwarf/orc/elf/mushroom man Is or isn't any soecific way Is also pretty dumb.

Quote from: Brigman on February 09, 2025, 09:18:51 PMOne thing that comes across over time is that Worf himself is both atypical (raised by humans, Starfleet Officer) and a "Klingon's Klingon" in that he embraces the IDEALS of the species, not the reality that a Klingon raised in the culture would.  This is why he's different from Kurn (his brother), Gowron, and the rest.  I also think it's why Martok is so fond of him.

This is the core of what makes Worf an interesting character. He is a Klingon raised by humans who embraces the ideals of his Klingon culture and species, who through the two series of Star Trek he was part of learns that the reality of modern Klingons is not the Ideal of being Klingon that he has read and tried to live up to. This is like a character believing the songs and poems he has heard from Bards to entertain, then going out and adventuring only to find that the reality is less heroic and far more bloody. That makes for some compelling storytelling in media and would make for some interesting role-playing at the game table.

Sometimes, Star Trek did it right.

Quote from: adrianthebard on February 11, 2025, 11:48:48 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:31:49 PMI'm more often annoyed by non-human PCs is that the players just play them as stereotypes instead of as part of a broad species and society that is different than humans.

For example, in my last Middle Earth game, I had ten pregen PCs who were all dwarves. I think they all represented parts of Tolkien's dwarven traditions, but they were also all different from each other. Part of what I wanted to dispel is how all dwarves are centered on the single character of Gimli - i.e. beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners with a Scottish accent. The dwarf PCs come from many different rungs of society - an idealistic scholar, a two-fisted brawler, a trouble-making young princess, a charismatic queen, etc.

One of my favorite PCs ever was from a GURPS Fantasy game in grad school, where there was a new Roman Empire after a weird time-looping magic apocalypse that included elves and dwarves. I played a Romanized elf who was an enthusiastic convert to Roman culture, who despised the tree-hugging ways of his fellow elves as backwards hicks. His name was Antonius Publius Eldarus, and he frequently cited Roman philosophy in contrast to barbarians like the Gauls, Celts, and elves.

that's awesome! But in a way you're still playing with stereotypes. Just inverting them, you're playing against "It".
I agree with op insofar as that when you play a non human you have to address the stereotype, by either conforming, rejecting or even falling in between the two. All Is fine and nice and makes for good rp material imo.
But it's there.
Pretending it's not Is schizo. Dunno if that's what the woman was doing, maybe She meant to say "not all dwarfs Need to be XYZ" but lacking vocabulary just blurted out abt fairy racism.
Also, protesting if somebody's dwarf/orc/elf/mushroom man Is or isn't any soecific way Is also pretty dumb.

I agree that the stereotype is always there, and thus it has to be addressed even if implicitly.

But that removes all power from the original claim. There's always some relation between a character and the stereotype. So there's no inherently doing it wrong.

For any given fantasy world, the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves have the same body type, unlike humans who range from huge to tiny, and grossly fat to spindle thin -- just like the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves are gruff and bearded and like beer and use axes. But there's nothing wrong with having them vary.

Quote from: Brigman on February 10, 2025, 07:48:57 PMFunny thing about Gnolls.

In my original (1e) campaign, early 90s, a Paladin PC (who led with his chin) got killed.  Party was unable to get a Raise Dead/Resurrection spell, they used a Druid to do Reincarnate.  He came back as a gnoll. 

This being 1e, they weren't demonic, just feral hyena-men.  And so the reincarnated PC went about trying to convert/redeem as many gnolls to the cause of good as he could.

Years later, when we reincarnated the campaign, gnolls had been changed to demon-spawn, and it kind of unhinged the whole plotline...

HAH! You too?

I lost a bard PC and much the same, got reincarnated as a gnoll. Couldnt level. But retained what had.

And I totally reject wotc's change of gnolls, and so many other monsters and races to demon spawn. Gargoyles, Manticores, and more now.

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 01:04:48 PM

Quote from: adrianthebard on February 11, 2025, 11:48:48 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:31:49 PMI'm more often annoyed by non-human PCs is that the players just play them as stereotypes instead of as part of a broad species and society that is different than humans.

For example, in my last Middle Earth game, I had ten pregen PCs who were all dwarves. I think they all represented parts of Tolkien's dwarven traditions, but they were also all different from each other. Part of what I wanted to dispel is how all dwarves are centered on the single character of Gimli - i.e. beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners with a Scottish accent. The dwarf PCs come from many different rungs of society - an idealistic scholar, a two-fisted brawler, a trouble-making young princess, a charismatic queen, etc.

One of my favorite PCs ever was from a GURPS Fantasy game in grad school, where there was a new Roman Empire after a weird time-looping magic apocalypse that included elves and dwarves. I played a Romanized elf who was an enthusiastic convert to Roman culture, who despised the tree-hugging ways of his fellow elves as backwards hicks. His name was Antonius Publius Eldarus, and he frequently cited Roman philosophy in contrast to barbarians like the Gauls, Celts, and elves.

that's awesome! But in a way you're still playing with stereotypes. Just inverting them, you're playing against "It".
I agree with op insofar as that when you play a non human you have to address the stereotype, by either conforming, rejecting or even falling in between the two. All Is fine and nice and makes for good rp material imo.
But it's there.
Pretending it's not Is schizo. Dunno if that's what the woman was doing, maybe She meant to say "not all dwarfs Need to be XYZ" but lacking vocabulary just blurted out abt fairy racism.
Also, protesting if somebody's dwarf/orc/elf/mushroom man Is or isn't any soecific way Is also pretty dumb.

I agree that the stereotype is always there, and thus it has to be addressed even if implicitly.

But that removes all power from the original claim. There's always some relation between a character and the stereotype. So there's no inherently doing it wrong.

For any given fantasy world, the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves have the same body type, unlike humans who range from huge to tiny, and grossly fat to spindle thin -- just like the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves are gruff and bearded and like beer and use axes. But there's nothing wrong with having them vary.

Greetings!

*Laughing* I agree here with you, Jhkim. I think that of course there is room for whatever race to embrace some kind of variation in appearance, physique, psychology, characterization, and outlook. That is all fine and good.

I don't approve of deconstructionism, though. Making sweeping, huge and stupid changes that mangle the race into some kind of rainbow-cotton-candy fuckstick. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AT MY GAME TABLE. I would also strongly encourage anyone else to avoid pursuing such a course of action in their own game world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 03:58:15 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 01:04:48 PMFor any given fantasy world, the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves have the same body type, unlike humans who range from huge to tiny, and grossly fat to spindle thin -- just like the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves are gruff and bearded and like beer and use axes. But there's nothing wrong with having them vary.

*Laughing* I agree here with you, Jhkim. I think that of course there is room for whatever race to embrace some kind of variation in appearance, physique, psychology, characterization, and outlook. That is all fine and good.

I don't approve of deconstructionism, though. Making sweeping, huge and stupid changes that mangle the race into some kind of rainbow-cotton-candy fuckstick. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AT MY GAME TABLE. I would also strongly encourage anyone else to avoid pursuing such a course of action in their own game world.

By definition, stupid changes into fucksticks are bad - but that kind of begs the question of what makes them stupid fucksticks. I gave some examples of variant D&D dwarves in the split thread, "What should dvergar/dwarves be like?"

The cannibal Utuchekulu Christopher Dolunt's Nyambe with their blood-red teeth and bite attack.



The Korobokuru in Gygax's Oriental Adventures, the .



The dwarves in my Lands of New Horizons setting (no picture).

Dwarves based on the dokkalfar or svartalfar of Norse myth.



I'd add in the nomadic Mongol-like dwarves of the Sovereign Stone RPG (1999):

Quote from: SHARK on February 11, 2025, 03:58:15 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 11, 2025, 01:04:48 PM

Quote from: adrianthebard on February 11, 2025, 11:48:48 AM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 05:31:49 PMI'm more often annoyed by non-human PCs is that the players just play them as stereotypes instead of as part of a broad species and society that is different than humans.

For example, in my last Middle Earth game, I had ten pregen PCs who were all dwarves. I think they all represented parts of Tolkien's dwarven traditions, but they were also all different from each other. Part of what I wanted to dispel is how all dwarves are centered on the single character of Gimli - i.e. beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners with a Scottish accent. The dwarf PCs come from many different rungs of society - an idealistic scholar, a two-fisted brawler, a trouble-making young princess, a charismatic queen, etc.

One of my favorite PCs ever was from a GURPS Fantasy game in grad school, where there was a new Roman Empire after a weird time-looping magic apocalypse that included elves and dwarves. I played a Romanized elf who was an enthusiastic convert to Roman culture, who despised the tree-hugging ways of his fellow elves as backwards hicks. His name was Antonius Publius Eldarus, and he frequently cited Roman philosophy in contrast to barbarians like the Gauls, Celts, and elves.

that's awesome! But in a way you're still playing with stereotypes. Just inverting them, you're playing against "It".
I agree with op insofar as that when you play a non human you have to address the stereotype, by either conforming, rejecting or even falling in between the two. All Is fine and nice and makes for good rp material imo.
But it's there.
Pretending it's not Is schizo. Dunno if that's what the woman was doing, maybe She meant to say "not all dwarfs Need to be XYZ" but lacking vocabulary just blurted out abt fairy racism.
Also, protesting if somebody's dwarf/orc/elf/mushroom man Is or isn't any soecific way Is also pretty dumb.

I agree that the stereotype is always there, and thus it has to be addressed even if implicitly.

But that removes all power from the original claim. There's always some relation between a character and the stereotype. So there's no inherently doing it wrong.

For any given fantasy world, the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves have the same body type, unlike humans who range from huge to tiny, and grossly fat to spindle thin -- just like the GM is within his power to say that all dwarves are gruff and bearded and like beer and use axes. But there's nothing wrong with having them vary.

Greetings!

*Laughing* I agree here with you, Jhkim. I think that of course there is room for whatever race to embrace some kind of variation in appearance, physique, psychology, characterization, and outlook. That is all fine and good.

I don't approve of deconstructionism, though. Making sweeping, huge and stupid changes that mangle the race into some kind of rainbow-cotton-candy fuckstick. THAT WILL NEVER HAPPEN AT MY GAME TABLE. I would also strongly encourage anyone else to avoid pursuing such a course of action in their own game world.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Well, deconstructionism is just another way to isolate the deconstructor from everyone else. If you say that your orcs are kinder and gentler then any that have come before, then you are making the nature of the game significantly different than it was before. Enough deconstructionism of cornerstones of the game and then the deconstructor is not playing the same game as everyone else and  will fail to attract enough experienced players who used to play the game before it started being mucked with. The common historical play experience will be lost and the deconstructor will end up having to teach their whacked out version to newbies every time they want to play.

Meh.  This whole discussion glosses over the transparent reality: You can't play a non-human.  Ever.  That's why stereotypes are useful, because they give a focus for players to reflect some alien experience that the human brain actually can't experience.

The closest you might get would be a set of random action/reaction tables that you roll on to simulate the workings of a non-human sentience.  Only if your actions and reactions don't follow human logic could you be said to even approach alien intelligence.  Hell, we can't even appropriately model the reactions, thoughts, or feelings of normal animals (like cats and dogs) to the point where we can reliably predict their behavior (we have generalities, but certainly can't make predictive statements about individuals), much less sentient humanoids.

So, in reality, it's not that the stereotype is "inherent" in any concept of dwarf.  It's that, without the stereotype, there is no concept of "dwarf."  You either have Chris' "humans in a mask," or you have something so incomprehensible that no player could ever play it.  The stereotype is what is needed to at least ground the fantasy race enough that a human has something to focus on in an attempt to play it.  A lot of you have the cart before the horse here.

Now, this is especially problematic for the libtards at WotC.  Because they can't conceive of an intelligence that doesn't agree with them.  It's why they see no problem with inviting radically different cultures into the West, because they don't believe that humans can have an incomprehensible logic, either.  Everybody wants freedom, democracy, and trans-kids, right?  So, they can conceive of non-humans as purely antagonistic.  They don't believe in kill-or-be-killed.  Their entire world-view is built on the shaky edifice of all problems being socially inculcated on people otherwise born tabula rasa.  Because, if not, if some people are really born evil, if some cultures really are abhorrent, then they are wrong about everything.

So, orcs can't be monsters.  They can't be thoroughly evil, inimical to all other species.  Sapient beings just can't be (tell it to the Neanderthals).  Therefore, they have to be just like us.  They have to be humans with a mask on.  They have to be... Mexicans!

Quote from: Gay4Strahd on February 04, 2025, 06:48:49 PM

Quote from: Chris24601 on February 04, 2025, 05:36:08 PM

Quote from: Omega on February 03, 2025, 10:55:50 PMProbably the same fruitcakes from BGG who proclaimed that "Dwarves liking beer is racist." Wish I were joking.

The great irony is that, until we figured out pasteurization, EVERYONE liked whatever the local alcoholic beverage was because the alcohol killed off the bacteria present in most water sources.

Fun fact: you need about 75% alcohol content to kill most pathogens, the more likely factors in brewed or distilled drinks being safer are the boiling of the ingredients and the fermentation process itself.

I believe you are confusing isopropyl alcohol with ethanol.

You need an concentration of ~70% in your cleaning agents, not your cup.

Is this whole topic based upon some lady in the 1980's confusing biological race with "race" as used in a cultural context?

Dwarfs are not Homo Sapiens Sapiens.

I can't believe things have gotten this bad, lol.

Given experience from actual games and second hand experience from others, I don't really get how this is any different from someone playing a human. Most people play barely-imagined cardboard cutouts no matter the species.