Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 11:34:45 AMWhere does he make a claim about society as a whole hating him? Hint, he doesn't.

Where did I make a claim that society as a whole hated him? Hint, I didn't.
In fact, my whole point was exactly the opposite.

See how annoying, disingenuous, and dishonest that cheap semantic trick is?

Quote from: HappyDaze on June 08, 2024, 11:18:23 AM

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.

You are correct! I really should know better.

Quote from: Festus on June 08, 2024, 11:52:51 AM

Quote from: GeekyBugle on June 08, 2024, 11:34:45 AMWhere does he make a claim about society as a whole hating him? Hint, he doesn't.

Where did I make a claim that society as a whole hated him? Hint, I didn't.
In fact, my whole point was exactly the opposite.

See how annoying, disingenuous, and dishonest that cheap semantic trick is?

Makes claims about society TWICE, gets called out, claims it's the one calling him out the one who's dishonest, disingenuous, annoying and using cheap semantic tricks...

Hmmm, both strain and phenotype have merits, and I hadn't considered either previously.   Thanks, folks!

Quote from: Eirikrautha on June 08, 2024, 06:57:44 PMHmmm, both strain and phenotype have merits, and I hadn't considered either previously.   Thanks, folks!

Just on the virtue of how it sounds to say out loud I like strain a lot more than phenotype.

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.

I have come to that conclusion by reading what they have said publicly.  They are not at all shy about saying all of these things.

I don't think we can really ignore the real world. On Earth 20 thousand years ago, we had Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovans, and Floresiensis, all different species yet all able to interbreed. Indeed, unless you solely have sub-Saharan ancestry, you have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in you (though I believe mainland China views their ancestry as coming entirely from Homo Erectus, Peking Man)

On a similar lines, while they aren't that smart now, what if chimps, orangutans, gorillas, and so forth became intelligent, a la Planet of the Apes. That's not a stretch, it could very well happen in the future with genetic engineering. You'd have intelligent species that would not be able to breed with humans or each other.

So I think species makes sense, but among those that can interbreed, you'd probably have very few pure members of it, so ancestry makes sense there for the most dominant species in a person.

Quote from: JeremyR on June 09, 2024, 02:52:51 AMI don't think we can really ignore the real world.

When I play a fantasy game, I can and do ignore the real world. 

I was never a big fan of using "race" as a term for elves, dwarves etc. not for the political reasons, but only due to it appearing unscientific (elves, dwarves etc. seems too different to humans to be "races" instead of "species"). Yeah, I know, fantasy world with magic, dragons and the such, but I always liked biology so I tend to prefer things following the biological taxonomy. But in many old sci-fi books, even by authors who are against racism as Arthur Clarke, the word "race" is used in the same neutral way as D&D uses, meaning "species" (as "Human race", or "Martian race").

"Ancestries" or "kindred" seem way worse than both "races" and "species". I think "race" is too few to state the differences between elf, dwarf and man, so "ancestry" is even worse, meaning even less, let's say, "genetic separation" between these, well, "races". "Kindred" is simply cringe and even more meaningless.

Anyway, we all know science is the last preoccupation of these RPG companies when doing this change. And while by itself that change is not too much, it is just one of lots and lots of other changes like that (well documented in this forum and other parts of the internet), when they change traditional words or game aspects that for any normal person it is not offensive because of their position in the widespread ideological conflict that occurs in our society, a thing way larger than our small world of nerdish games.

So, yeah, not a "hill to die on" by itself, and of course I could not care if the word "race" is not being used in a new game, or in a sci-fi setting (Star Wars d20 was based on D&D 3.X and used "species" instead of "races", and I personally think it fits the scenario way better that way). But if a company changes the wording in a game they already published with the word "race", or if they published an obvious D&D retroclone in a fantasy world where "races" are not classes, then it is a possible sign that either they caved to the woke mob, or they are part of it.

Maybe I'm overreacting, maybe it's just a personal preference of the writers, maybe that means nothing regarding the content of their products or the political affinities of the writers, but for now unfortunately the well is poisoned, so even small, silly things as that can mean something bad, and I'm not too hopeful to don't expect the worst possibility.

(First post btw, but I lurked the forum for a while)

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!

GURPS Space used "variant", I think it could be a good wording for this case (maybe "human variant" or something like that).

Quote from: JeremyR on June 09, 2024, 02:52:51 AMI don't think we can really ignore the real world. On Earth 20 thousand years ago, we had Cro-Magnon, Neanderthal, Denisovans, and Floresiensis, all different species yet all able to interbreed. Indeed, unless you solely have sub-Saharan ancestry, you have Neanderthal and Denisovan DNA in you (though I believe mainland China views their ancestry as coming entirely from Homo Erectus, Peking Man)

Not quite.

As humans (or what will eventually become humans) migrate out of Africa, they encounter Neanderthal and interbreed. This interbreeding is to such an extent that only African groups who never interacted lack Neanderthal DNA. Humans then migrate east and west.

Denisovan DNA, on the other hand, is really only found east of about Pakistan-ish and is more concentrated among the Pacific islands than mainland Asia. Although it does stretch far enough east that it shows up among Amerindians. Meanwhile, the groups who migrated west and north through Turkey and Ukraine don't pick it up. To the extent that you see Denisovan DNA in Europe, the British Empire appears to be the primary cause.

Species is a terrible term, so it's not surprising WOTC is using it.

Ancestry isn't bad, but I won't ever use this term in my products because
(1) it's adopted purely out of political reasons, not because people organically started using it
(2) it's not as general as "race" because it inaccurately characterizes many character types

e.g.

A race of magical or technological constructs isn't an "ancestry" because these beings are manufactured. This can be splitting hairs depending on the setting, but "race" actually is the better term here

Race has become a generic term, like Kleenex or Xerox, for any group of people that are different enough in form and culture from another. I'll even use Race for artificial beings like robots or androids.

Good enough for TTRPGs.

I've been using species for the term in my own RPG. But if we ever do a reprint I am switching it to race just so I am not associated with these moral guardians.

Quote from: Zelen on June 09, 2024, 08:29:19 PMSpecies is a terrible term, so it's not surprising WOTC is using it.

Ancestry isn't bad, but I won't ever use this term in my products because
(1) it's adopted purely out of political reasons, not because people organically started using it
(2) it's not as general as "race" because it inaccurately characterizes many character types

e.g.

A race of magical or technological constructs isn't an "ancestry" because these beings are manufactured. This can be splitting hairs depending on the setting, but "race" actually is the better term here

Shadow of the Demon Lord has been using Ancestry since 2015. Can you say for certain it did it purely out of political reasons?