Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 07, 2020, 12:24:43 PMWhat is its potential to cause conflicts for the PCs to get involved in?  This doesn't have to be as outright antagonists, although that's one way, but there has to be some way in which members of the race -- either en masse through their presence in the world, or as individuals through their interactions -- create interesting situations for the PCs.

Agree. Ideally, the differences in the races are such that conflicts occur naturally but aren't forced.  That is, players that aren't bound and determined to be idiots (nothing can fix them) aren't shoved into dealing with things like Kender kleptomania--something very narrow and likely to be highly annoying if played straight or a throwaway gag if played for laughs.  Granted, where to draw the lines on such potential conflicts will very much depend on the interests of the players, even throwing all the idiots out of the equation.  Still, the race material ought to at least give the group a fighting chance.  Accordingly, I prefer the racial pieces to be somewhat low key and easy for the GM to tweak.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 06, 2020, 05:38:20 AM
I'm creating a set of races for use as PCs in a fantasy game, and I would like some advice.  I'm beyond bored with D&D/Tolkien races so I'm not doing any of those.  (Except elves - my co-creator loves elves so we have to have those.)  So far we have humans, bear people (I'm stealing the Sodeskayan Bears from the Helmsman books), a seafaring avian race, and some cursory ideas for others.  So ...

1)  What do you want to know about a race, especially one not well-defined in literature, in order to enjoy playing it?  Both for roleplaying and mechanics.

2)  What would you consider the defining characteristics for an RPG race?

3)  Is there any fantasy race you would love to see in a game that has not been done over and over already?

4)  Any general advice on this kind of project?  Any lessons learned from personal experience would be much appreciated.

There is a huge variety of characters in fantasy writ large. So I don't think there should be a single standard, or even defining characteristics. In my non-D&D games, I've seen a huge variety of characters: talking animals, dragons, ghosts, vampires, demons, angels, Amberites/Chaosites, and more.

Even aside from races, there are a ton of options of having a variety of character without them being races. Like having zodiac signs be majorly important, or nationality, or religion. For example, the sword-and-sorcery world of Xoth has character culture be central: Savage / Nomadic / Civilized / Enlightened / Decadent / Degenerate.

If you're sticking with standard-model races, and you are adapting bear-men, you might consider having a full menagerie. A variety of animal-people are a staple of fantasy from Lewis' Narnia to Redwall and others, but they're less prominent in RPGs.


Re: mundane, tough, graceful, aggressive, small

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 07, 2020, 01:52:44 PM
In addition, some setting have intelligent alien species. While all the species described above are slight variations on humans, these are something completely different. Maybe they are six-limbed insect people, formless shape-changers, mutants that are completely different to each other, talking animals with no opposing thumbs, etc.

Other species are combination of two different traits (goblins are small and aggressive; gnomes are small and graceful; etc.) or exaggerated versions of the ones mentioned above (giants can be especially tough; werewolves might be incredibly aggressive; etc.).

You do not need to have all types in your setting, of course, and you can have multiple species of the same type. The "tough" and "aggressive" archetypes are often treated as synonyms, but I find the distinction useful – ignore that if you prefer.

(mundane, tough, graceful, aggressive, small) is a good outline of the most common sorts of fantasy races. But in my opinion, it's boring. Just remixing these creates a slightly reskinned Tolkienesque world, which is boring compared to the possible range of fantasy fiction.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 07, 2020, 10:59:04 AM
Absolutely. In fact that might turn into an internal conflict among the Felinoi, where you have a small cult of them vociferously clinging to "the old ways" in ways that sometimes cause serious embarrassments for the rest of their folk among the world at large.

True; or, alternately, they may respond very strongly to the idea that "one does not hunt in a territory not yours" (a carryover from their own competitive days) and become widely hired out as forest rangers known to be absolutely brutal towards any poachers they catch, in return for sharing some of the noble's hunting rights.

So biopolitics are certainly not determinative, but they are almost always pretty influential.

Ah, well played. And very true. I had forgotten how big cats will stake out territories.

And to add to the fun: such poachers that are caught by cat rangers may not live to see trial or punishment. After all, meat is so expensive... (bonus points if nobody's sure if that's true or not. Uncertainty is such a wonderful thing.)

Quote from: jhkim on December 07, 2020, 05:40:10 PMThere is a huge variety of characters in fantasy writ large. So I don't think there should be a single standard, or even defining characteristics.

Agreed, with one caveat:  As with weapon-armour combinations in tactically savvy games, there shouldn't be one single option among the possible PC-playable choices that is, in itself, so obviously across-the-board superior nobody will want to play anything else, or which will overshadow everybody else in a group if only one player chooses it.  A race which has strengths or abilities not shared by humans should also have to contend with obstacles or weaknesses that humans are free of.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 07, 2020, 06:01:13 PMAnd to add to the fun: such poachers that are caught by cat rangers may not live to see trial or punishment. After all, meat is so expensive... (bonus points if nobody's sure if that's true or not. Uncertainty is such a wonderful thing.)

Yeeeessshhh! (shudder)

I think you've just done something people have failed to do for decades; you've hit on a perspective that makes cat-girls scary/squicky, rather than sexy. I tip my hat, sir!

Quote from: Mishihari on December 06, 2020, 05:38:20 AM
1)  What do you want to know about a race, especially one not well-defined in literature, in order to enjoy playing it?  Both for roleplaying and mechanics.

Important appearance/physiology characteristics, one or two origin myths, two or three prime motivations (e.g., for humans this could be desire for safety, desire for esteem from peers, desire for freedom). The motivations should be somewhat contradictory, as this will add depth and give players options on how to play the race.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 06, 2020, 05:38:20 AM
2)  What would you consider the defining characteristics for an RPG race?

Same as 1).

Quote from: Mishihari on December 06, 2020, 05:38:20 AM
3)  Is there any fantasy race you would love to see in a game that has not been done over and over already?

No. 

Quote from: Mishihari on December 06, 2020, 05:38:20 AM
4)  Any general advice on this kind of project?  Any lessons learned from personal experience would be much appreciated.

Keep it simple. Give the player several strong hooks and let them run with it. Think of elves and immortality or dwarves and the lust for gold. Do not shoulder the player with reams of background they must learn to play the race "correctly." There is much variety in the human race, so there should be the same for other races.

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 07, 2020, 06:03:28 PM

Quote from: jhkim on December 07, 2020, 05:40:10 PMThere is a huge variety of characters in fantasy writ large. So I don't think there should be a single standard, or even defining characteristics.

Agreed, with one caveat:  As with weapon-armour combinations in tactically savvy games, there shouldn't be one single option among the possible PC-playable choices that is, in itself, so obviously across-the-board superior nobody will want to play anything else, or which will overshadow everybody else in a group if only one player chooses it.  A race which has strengths or abilities not shared by humans should also have to contend with obstacles or weaknesses that humans are free of.

I prefer to do this by mechanics rather than by forcing the world to fit. In some settings, there are creatures that are flat out more powerful than humans. AD&D1 tackled this by "Monsters as Player Characters" which suggested various means to balance. D&D3 had "effective character level" for some races/creatures. In non-D&D systems, this is handled by having an extra point cost for certain race options, like in Dresden Files.

There are also ways to handle not all PCs being balanced.

In Cinematic Unisystem (used for the Buffy the Vampire Slayer RPG), PCs were divided between "Hero" PCs like a Slayer, vampire, or demon -- and "White Hat" PCs who were ordinary humans. The "White Hat" PCs were objectively less powerful, but were given more options - in this case Drama points.

In Ars Magica, for example, all the players have two PCs: a more-powerful magi PC and a less-powerful companion. The players switch off which characters they're playing, so everyone has a turn being the most powerful. Similarly, I ran a bunch of games based on the Temeraire books where some PCs were humans and some PCs were dragons. All the players had a human PC and a dragon PC, and they switched off who played what.

To be honest there is only one race that I am usually interested in:

Warforged.

Warforged, Elves and Catfolk the one main race that I am interested in.

Quote from: jhkim on December 07, 2020, 05:40:10 PM
Re: mundane, tough, graceful, aggressive, small

Quote from: Eric Diaz on December 07, 2020, 01:52:44 PM
In addition, some setting have intelligent alien species. While all the species described above are slight variations on humans, these are something completely different. Maybe they are six-limbed insect people, formless shape-changers, mutants that are completely different to each other, talking animals with no opposing thumbs, etc.

Other species are combination of two different traits (goblins are small and aggressive; gnomes are small and graceful; etc.) or exaggerated versions of the ones mentioned above (giants can be especially tough; werewolves might be incredibly aggressive; etc.).

You do not need to have all types in your setting, of course, and you can have multiple species of the same type. The "tough" and "aggressive" archetypes are often treated as synonyms, but I find the distinction useful – ignore that if you prefer.

(mundane, tough, graceful, aggressive, small) is a good outline of the most common sorts of fantasy races. But in my opinion, it's boring. Just remixing these creates a slightly reskinned Tolkienesque world, which is boring compared to the possible range of fantasy fiction.

Oh, sure, I agree, but I am sticking close to "traditional" D&D. My preferred setting would be something closer to Tékumel.

Excellent.  That is quite a lot of food for thought.  I can see that I came to the right place.  Thanks, all, for your help thus far.

I'll provide some background to the game since a few posters implied that more information would help.

Premise:  About 200 years ago, after a fall of civilization and recovery, explorers from the western continent returned to the eastern continent to restore contact and look for profit.  They found a land empty of the expected inhabitants, indeed all intelligent life,  and changed beyond recognition from historical records.  They also found various types of treasure.  A colonial rush followed and there are currently a fair number of city states sponsored by three major powers across the western coastal area.  Relations between the various cities and powers vary over time between distrust and open warfare.  It's very age of pirates, minus the natives.  The city states and surrounding areas are settled, but the spaces between are wild and dangerous, and the areas away from the coast are unexplored and more dangerous still.

Impetus for the game:  About a year ago, my 11 year old son asked for a D&D birthday party.  He had never played, but he knew that it used to be my major hobby.  It was still a bit of a surprise, though.  I thought D&D was too complex to be fun for a one-off for brand new players, so I examined my games library to find something that fit my son's interests and came up empty.  I wrote a half page rule set, made up some pre-gens, and a good time was had by all.  Something about the simple rules really clicked for me, so I've been developing it into a full game.  At 60 pages, it no longer really deserves its name, "dead simple roleplaying," but I'm keeping the name nonetheless.  The target audience is still my son (and now my daughter) and their friends.

Some comments on the discussion thus far

The thoughts about letting players create their races is very intriguing, but I don't think I want to try it with this group, since they have virtually no experience with RPGs.

I'm tempted to use anthropomorphic animals for all of the races, but I see an issue.  All of the literature I'm familiar with that has anthropomorphic animals (except the original TMNT) is for kids, and my kids want to feel grown up, so I think they'll be less interested in this approach. 

Moving away from traditional races doesn't have much downside for this group.  They do know the Hobbit, but they're more familiar with Harry Potter, Percy Jackson, and other more recent stories, so they don't have any expectation that they'll be in the land of Tolkien or the Tolkien wannabees.

Quote from: Mishihari on December 08, 2020, 05:51:02 AM


I'm tempted to use anthropomorphic animals for all of the races, but I see an issue.  All of the literature I'm familiar with that has anthropomorphic animals (except the original TMNT) is for kids, and my kids want to feel grown up, so I think they'll be less interested in this approach.

Its probably not the answer you're looking for, but if the above is the case I'd argue you should have everyone be human and focus on their cultural distinctions. Game of thrones would have been a lot less serious with warforged and wolf people running around common place.

I think the most important thing to consider is whether you have a "baseline" race/species or not. This is usually the choice with the most neutral/flexible ability modifiers and skill adjustments mechanically, and the most common/widespread inhabitant of the setting. Most games and game settings default to humans filling this role, but it doesn't have to be this way, and some settings may not even have humans in them. This can dramatically change expectations, and playing in a setting with no baseline species can be fun. Note that, oddly enough, humans in D&D 5e are both the baseline and also oddly above the norm in everything (+1 to all ability scores) by default. Consider a D&D world where a race other than humans were the most common/widespread inhabitants and humans were either non-existent or only appeared in very small roles (perhaps they are the dying race in the setting).

Quote from: Stephen Tannhauser on December 07, 2020, 06:06:07 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 07, 2020, 06:01:13 PMAnd to add to the fun: such poachers that are caught by cat rangers may not live to see trial or punishment. After all, meat is so expensive... (bonus points if nobody's sure if that's true or not. Uncertainty is such a wonderful thing.)

Yeeeessshhh! (shudder)

I think you've just done something people have failed to do for decades; you've hit on a perspective that makes cat-girls scary/squicky, rather than sexy. I tip my hat, sir!

When most people think of 'anthro' animal-people, yeah, their mind goes to cutesy cat girls.

My first exposure to animal-people as such was S. Andrew Swann's Forests of the Night, where the 'moreaus' were... quite a bit scarier.

Quote from: Ghostmaker on December 08, 2020, 06:49:00 AM
When most people think of 'anthro' animal-people, yeah, their mind goes to cutesy cat girls.

My first exposure to animal-people as such was S. Andrew Swann's Forests of the Night, where the 'moreaus' were... quite a bit scarier.

If I had players that thought of cutesy cat girls, I might be more hesitant to include such things.  Fortunately, I'm the only one in my groups that have ever heard of that, and I have no intention of replicating it.  We might get the barest hint of a Disney Robin Hood vibe from some, but mostly it is just another character to develop into a personality during play, same as a human, elf, or dwarf. 

Quote from: Mishihari on December 08, 2020, 05:51:02 AMPremise:  About 200 years ago, after a fall of civilization and recovery, explorers from the western continent returned to the eastern continent to restore contact and look for profit.  They found a land empty of the expected inhabitants, indeed all intelligent life,  and changed beyond recognition from historical records.  They also found various types of treasure.  A colonial rush followed and there are currently a fair number of city states sponsored by three major powers across the western coastal area.  Relations between the various cities and powers vary over time between distrust and open warfare.  It's very age of pirates, minus the natives.  The city states and surrounding areas are settled, but the spaces between are wild and dangerous, and the areas away from the coast are unexplored and more dangerous still.

If the land is empty of inhabitants or intelligent life, then what would be the need for more character species? If that is the case then humans should probably be enough, unless there's multiple races in the other continent from where they come from, in which case we would need to know more about that other continent to provide an educated guess about what sort races would inhabit that other landmass.

But this also brings up another question for me: what if there really are other inhabitants in remote regions of this continent? Maybe there are large tribes of Beastmen at the other extreme end of the continent and the human colonists are in for a rude surprise when the Beastmen become upset with the invaders. Maybe some of the Beastmen tribes are open to trade and those could be potential PCs, but others are hostiles to invaders to their territory.

You also hint to some type of cataclysmic event that destroyed some old civilization here, and there's still treasure from that older age behind. How advanced was this earlier civilization? Advanced enough to leave golem guardians behind? Maybe there's a Warforged-like race of ancient guardians waiting to be discovered in some of these ruins. And what if the precursors of this old civilization are still around, but just went underground? Maybe there's an advanced alien-like race living in underground cities waiting to be discovered. Maybe they're elves adapted to life underground and have become albino or such. That could be where elves from your world come from--unless you want elves to come from the other continent along with the human colonists, or maybe there are two subraces of elves: forest elves that came with the human colonists, and underground albino elves native to this land.