Quote from: GamerforHire on April 22, 2023, 05:53:14 PMWhat this whole issue makes me think about is how so often we create worlds where Demi-human or humanoid races tend to often be monoculture—all the High Elves basically have the same government, culture, social structure, etc., though Wood Elves might have their own but consistent version; all the Dwarves basically come from same culture, etc. Meanwhile, our human races have a myriad of governments, cultures, languages, etc.

What I'm seeing from this post is a very modern (or post-modern) way of thinking. If you were growing up in a medieval town, your entire life would be spent in a single monoculture. Sure, if you're in Prague then someone from Germany or Hungary would seem strange and exotic but for modern people, those differences are almost insignificant now.

So the need to create multiple variation of each race of non-human has no real practical benefit as the players in a game wouldn't even be encountering them. Instead I think the effort to make elves meaningfully different from humans is a much more valuable use of time than making certain elves slightly different from other elves. Especially when the party might only ever encounter one group of elves in the entire campaign.

The alternative being that you have six completely different kinds of elves living in close proximity to each other which is also a bit absurd.

I've always appreciated the idea that non-human fantasy races, of those capable of any degree of culture, are fictions through which we could explore an exaggeration of collected aspects of our own nature, as a recursion of a universe attempting to understand itself through being. The abuse lies in grabbing a few appealing qualities only to exalt them into absurdity: "Kitsunes are clever and playful and that's my entire identity so I'm literally a foxman now!" And then the hyenas crash the party.

For the sake of a game, they are like wardrobes for masquerades and carnivals. Though you could have more than one costume, maybe for a given festivity you even have a favorite one (perhaps certain aspects are never entertained), but otherwise regular life continues. As long as you can relate to a fantasy race as a sentient yet external attitude, you should be able to meet the expectations of the rest of the adventurers, honoring the immersion without excusing for "lived experience" or "irony."

This is why rolling for attributes under race/class constraints is the best way to create characters, because you can avoid over-investing in the "story" of that individual, and racial level-limits likewise prevent you from running out of ideas to keep that non-human character personable and fresh, regardless of the setting. Unless you decide that the dwarf gets too cranky to stay with these adventurers as an excuse to roll up a new character, given whatever might be confronted next.

Quote from: Thor's Nads on May 04, 2023, 12:49:09 AMElves are fey. That is what they literally are. Any other interpretation is a departure from the source material. Which is fine, of course, but then they are no longer elves. They are something else. Like boys putting lipstick on and calling themselves girls.

Take your holier-than-thou attitude and shove it up your ass.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 04, 2023, 08:04:10 AM
I say that as someone that as all but given up on film for entertainment, and vastly prefers mostly older written material.  Non-human playable races are played by humans, and are humans with pointy ears or funny hats, but the range of human behavior is vast, and leaves a lot of room for a thoughtful player to distinguish the character independent of the game race. 

Thank God for librivox.org and gutenberg.org right? I'm listening to Sabatini's Captain Blood on my commute. 

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on May 04, 2023, 08:04:10 AM
To be less nice about it, the argument usually goes like this:  "Playing an elf as a human with pointy ears is shallow.  Playing an elf as a non-human because I do X is depth."  Whereas, I see focusing on the non-human aspect so strongly as a sophomoric crutch to avoid dealing with the depth of the individual character.  Or perhaps more charitably, putting a lot of effort into playing a non-human as alien doesn't mean much if every time you play that race, it amounts to the same thing.  (Reflexively playing against type and stopping there is also a sophomoric crutch frequently used as an illusion for depth, but that's another discussion.)

I agree that bad role play can happen at either end of the spectrum and I think the worst thing to hear at the table is one player telling another, "Oh you can't do that because you're a Fill-in-the-Blank and according to book X page Y fill in lengthy rules at written quotation here."  That may be worse than "I'm a valley girl with pointy ears who wants to date me?"

I guess the key is to find a group who has the same level of interest in RP and lore.

Quote from: JackFS4 on May 05, 2023, 09:15:12 AM
I agree that bad role play can happen at either end of the spectrum and I think the worst thing to hear at the table is one player telling another, "Oh you can't do that because you're a Fill-in-the-Blank and according to book X page Y fill in lengthy rules at written quotation here."  That may be worse than "I'm a valley girl with pointy ears who wants to date me?"

I guess the key is to find a group who has the same level of interest in RP and lore.

Or just RP, full stop.  Lore can take care of itself, more or less.  Sure, there are preferences for how lore gets communicated, which lore is important to the game and which is mere color, etc.  Whatever lore the group values at the table, and however they approach it, that's the only lore that matters.  Whereas, the role play of the individual character matters all the time.

Of course, there's some minimal level of interest in the specific lore pertinent to the setting, or the player is likely to be a bad fit.  I run into this whenever I try to play in most superhero games, for example.  I'm just not into the tropes enough to fully engage.  Well,  it's the same thing with race/ancestry/culture meaning something in the game.  There's got to be something there for the players at the specific table to engage with, with that minimal level of interest.

I had some vivid examples of this in testing my races and cultures in my own system.  My cultures weren't working the way I wanted.  And it was across the board.  I did another pass in the rules for how they fit in, and now the players are more engaged.  There's still some holes, but I've made progress, and identified what the next step is. 

With my six races, it was completely different.  I got mild positive interest in humans, same with elves, bit of disinterest with my dwarves, and of the 3 new races, 2 were a major hit and the third was a complete dud in the interest department.  Did a major revision.  Interest picked up with the human/elf/dwarf group to match the success of the 2 other successful ones.  Tossed the dud completely and replaced with a new concept.  It's pulling the same interest as the rest now.  Once we tested that and found we were in the ballpark, I did another minor revision to reinforce the distinctions that the players found attractive.   We'll see how it goes. 

Point being, there's almost no lore there at all.  There's some very strong, implications of lore in the races, and hooks for me to build on those implications, but all I've got right now for the players is hints.  On the surface, except for the replacement of the dud races, there's not much difference in the original versus the current.  Yet, I'm getting a completely different level of engagement.

well like if you're playing conan, I tend to treat cultures and ethnic groups there the way classic dnd would treat races; Nemedians get +2 to any horsemanship related rolls for example, whilst a Zingaran would get the same on any roll related to seamanship or nautical lore.

Quote from: Slipshot762 on May 05, 2023, 09:57:39 PM
well like if you're playing conan, I tend to treat cultures and ethnic groups there the way classic dnd would treat races; Nemedians get +2 to any horsemanship related rolls for example, whilst a Zingaran would get the same on any roll related to seamanship or nautical lore.

And Picts get +2 for Sheep Bothering.

Quote from: GamerforHire on April 22, 2023, 05:53:14 PM

What this whole issue makes me think about is how so often we create worlds where Demi-human or humanoid races tend to often be monoculture—all the High Elves basically have the same government, culture, social structure, etc., though Wood Elves might have their own but consistent version; all the Dwarves basically come from same culture, etc. Meanwhile, our human races have a myriad of governments, cultures, languages, etc.

Has anyone played around with this, and had for example one group of High Elves be a feudal society, another group based around an Asian-inspired culture, a set of Dwarven clans that have the typical king, etc., while another acts like Scottish highland clans, etc.? One group of Orcs are insane cannibals, while another group has a tribal organization like the Zulu empire? An island culture of Hobbits as well as a "Shire" and not just the Shire?

Guess I might be the odd one on here because I don't normally run 'Fantasy' or "Sword asnd SorcerY" settings all the time.
My default RPG background is some sort of sci-fi setting with spaceships an non-human aliens in the game. Years ago I ran GURPS:TRAVELLER, these days I am doing the "Star Trek" setting.

The way I run it not 'all Klingons' think the same way, just like not all 'Humans' think the same way, and not 'all Andorians' think or act alike.
In the series "Deep Spsce Nine" the character of Dax had theline "They are as varied as any other species". She was referring to Klingtons - but I always loved that line because it meant that even the non-human races are not all 'cvlones' of eac other acting the way all the time.

-Ed C.

The main conflict, ie the motivation for any battle and subterfuge between various factions, should be as important as the setting itself.

With this, you could narrow down which sub-races a game master could offer as playable for character creation (or not to be present at all), since each sub-race offers a variation on how their over-arching racial goals are pursued. Drow and Eladrin might not be habitually different concerning their penchant for ornate architecture, fine crafted weapons, desire for magical power, and routine battle tactics, but these and other elves may differ exponentially in how they handle agreements with their enemies, how they prioritize their resources, and what they consider venerable, beyond just a favored terrain and fashion sense.

Especially scarce resources in a given campaign might still be jealously guarded by both of those example parties, but their unique reasons for doing so should provide a foil during to the adventurers, as well as provide room to variate upon the more familiar racial formulae. If you dislike elves altogether, there's no reason why Eladrin couldn't act upon evil intentions without possessing the open visceral aggression of the Drow, the latter whom might in a different campaign understand the circle of life with a superficially cold understanding, yet less brutal manner in practice.

Quote from: Koltar on May 05, 2023, 10:13:55 PM

Quote from: GamerforHire on April 22, 2023, 05:53:14 PM

What this whole issue makes me think about is how so often we create worlds where Demi-human or humanoid races tend to often be monoculture—all the High Elves basically have the same government, culture, social structure, etc., though Wood Elves might have their own but consistent version; all the Dwarves basically come from same culture, etc. Meanwhile, our human races have a myriad of governments, cultures, languages, etc.

Has anyone played around with this, and had for example one group of High Elves be a feudal society, another group based around an Asian-inspired culture, a set of Dwarven clans that have the typical king, etc., while another acts like Scottish highland clans, etc.? One group of Orcs are insane cannibals, while another group has a tribal organization like the Zulu empire? An island culture of Hobbits as well as a "Shire" and not just the Shire?

Guess I might be the odd one on here because I don't normally run 'Fantasy' or "Sword asnd SorcerY" settings all the time.
My default RPG background is some sort of sci-fi setting with spaceships an non-human aliens in the game. Years ago I ran GURPS:TRAVELLER, these days I am doing the "Star Trek" setting.

The way I run it not 'all Klinygons' think the same way, just like not all 'Humans' think the same way, and not 'all Andorians' think or act alike.
In the series "Deep Spsce Nine" the character of Dax had theline "They are as varied as any other species". She was referring to Klingtons - but I always loved that line because it meant that even the non-human races are not all 'cvlones' of eac other acting the way all the time.

-Ed C.

I was never a big DS9 fan but I vaguely remember that quote/phrase, which is exactly what I was talking about in the original post.

A few replies have questioned the utility of this, but they seemed to presuppose a smaller world with only one kingdom each of Elves, Dwarves, etc. My original question was more oriented to the creation of a bigger campaign world, with the possibility of multiple clusters of some demihumans and humanoids.