TheRPGSite

The 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.

* Yet another example of early infiltration into the hobby. With 20/20 hindsight, Peterson should have kicked them out of the game and told them to find a different hobby.

You need roughly 19 instances of the type before going against type has any punch.  After someone has played the typical elf, dwarf, or whatever 19 times in my campaign, I'm happy for them to break out a little. :D

Only sort of kidding.  It doesn't need to be that many, because other people are playing the races too, not to mention NPCs.  Still, a dwarf that is noticeably, slightly taller or shorter than average is great. Trying to change it into something else is just another way to try to wreck the setting, and shouldn't be tolerated any more than trying to bring in gunpowder where it doesn't exist.

Their Dwarf probably had rainbow colored hair, too.

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.

In Runequest they have a size stat and Dwarves roll 2d6 for their size. Humans have 3d6 for size. It's in the rules. Sandy should have said so, it's not some arbitrary choice in RuneQuest.

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

What you're talking about there is not playing against type, it's finding the breadth of possibilities within type. I could argue with the particular examples you use, but the basic fact is that because Tolkien was a good writer, there is enough wiggle room in his Dwarves to have a variety of characters without making something that isn't a Dwarf. Any well-realized fantasy world is going to allow for that.

That's a different thing than just ignoring what a Dwarf is in Middle Earth.

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 03, 2025, 05:57:45 PMIn Runequest they have a size stat and Dwarves roll 2d6 for their size. Humans have 3d6 for size. It's in the rules. Sandy should have said so, it's not some arbitrary choice in RuneQuest.

Technically the SIZ stat is mass, though, not height. A tall willowy creature can have the same SIZ stat as a bulky short one.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 03, 2025, 06:01:55 PM

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

What you're talking about there is not playing against type, it's finding the breadth of possibilities within type. I could argue with the particular examples you use, but the basic fact is that because Tolkien was a good writer, there is enough wiggle room in his Dwarves to have a variety of characters without making something that isn't a Dwarf. Any well-realized fantasy world is going to allow for that.

That's a different thing than just ignoring what a Dwarf is in Middle Earth.

The issue is about stereotypes, though. I'm saying that these two things are different:

1) What a dwarf is in Middle Earth

2) Stereotypes about dwarves in Middle Earth

In general, I would say that stereotypes about a thing are not the same as the thing itself.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 06:30:27 PMTechnically the SIZ stat is mass, though, not height. A tall willowy creature can have the same SIZ stat as a bulky short one.

RQ2 (and RQ Classic) have height and weight. The story is from 1985, a year after RQ3 shipped so it might be based on Mass but certainly Sandy would have known how RQ2 handled it. Anyway here is the table from RQ2.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgbT6evTI3o1k2JAXgJehw8NuY2F9ph_w9BRZ5cUSFcokrsno6P1q4Ts0B2FLcAK9JeEhK9wpI585w7JvNrXJFcECIBXxstgYtIVtcRtGZZHYUlAf6yCEuSd9tmDmczQ1ykU6jIes1FuuOVbfJRbw-Adl6cgbmhCNmtOaxtf9DKTccQNO1UGINhL8Luk98=w271-h347)
Dwarves are 2d6 for SIZ.

It's almost uncanny...

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 03, 2025, 06:51:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 06:30:27 PMTechnically the SIZ stat is mass, though, not height. A tall willowy creature can have the same SIZ stat as a bulky short one.

RQ2 (and RQ Classic) have height and weight. The story is from 1985, a year after RQ3 shipped so it might be based on Mass but certainly Sandy would have known how RQ2 handled it. Anyway here is the table from RQ2.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgbT6evTI3o1k2JAXgJehw8NuY2F9ph_w9BRZ5cUSFcokrsno6P1q4Ts0B2FLcAK9JeEhK9wpI585w7JvNrXJFcECIBXxstgYtIVtcRtGZZHYUlAf6yCEuSd9tmDmczQ1ykU6jIes1FuuOVbfJRbw-Adl6cgbmhCNmtOaxtf9DKTccQNO1UGINhL8Luk98=w271-h347)
Dwarves are 2d6 for SIZ.

In other words, a tall and willowy dwarf might be 4'10" (150 cm) and 110 lb. (50kg)... basically the upper end of size 9 height and middle of size 9 weight.

Tall and slight for a dwarf, but still shorter than an average female human and about the same weight as a thin female human a few inches taller.

At that point, what are the meaningful differences between races? Superficial physical traits?

Quote from: Ruprecht on February 03, 2025, 06:51:17 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 06:30:27 PMTechnically the SIZ stat is mass, though, not height. A tall willowy creature can have the same SIZ stat as a bulky short one.

RQ2 (and RQ Classic) have height and weight. The story is from 1985, a year after RQ3 shipped so it might be based on Mass but certainly Sandy would have known how RQ2 handled it. Anyway here is the table from RQ2.
(https://blogger.googleusercontent.com/img/a/AVvXsEgbT6evTI3o1k2JAXgJehw8NuY2F9ph_w9BRZ5cUSFcokrsno6P1q4Ts0B2FLcAK9JeEhK9wpI585w7JvNrXJFcECIBXxstgYtIVtcRtGZZHYUlAf6yCEuSd9tmDmczQ1ykU6jIes1FuuOVbfJRbw-Adl6cgbmhCNmtOaxtf9DKTccQNO1UGINhL8Luk98=w271-h347)
Dwarves are 2d6 for SIZ.

Thanks for the added information. I don't have RQ2. As you note, in 1985, the current edition was 3rd edition - and in those rules, SIZ is mass as I said.

In the original example, the woman says "That's racist", which I think a lot of people are reacting to - but that isn't the general point being made. I don't know the woman in the example, and it's quite possible she was just stupid.

But it looks possible that someone could have played RQ2 in 1985 and rolled up a dwarf character who was of above-average height for a human (like SIZ 12) -- so the GM would have been wrong to assume that the dwarf PC was short.

In RQ3, the size table in the main book is supplemented by the creature definitions. Since RQ3 was trying to get away from the automatic Glorantha setting, also supporting a "fantasy Earth" setting, the main books are just about humans. 

It's true that the same Size rules are used throughout, part of the reason for switching to mass.  However, this is what the start of the dwarf entry has to say on page 16 of the Creature Book:  "Their bodies and heads are nearly as large as those of humans, but their limbs are short, powerfully-muscled, and often twisted." Later, it goes on to note that male and human dwarfs do not differ in size or strength, but "Dwarf women are even more rarely seen than the men."

In the Players Book, page 44, the RQ size equivalency table has size 9 at 121-129 lbs, then size 12 at 156-168 lbs.

Hmm, the average human gets around 50% of their height from their legs and feet. Furthermore, most people have a "wingspan" (arms stretched out, finger-tip to finger-tip) within an inch or two of their height.  Muscle is a large portion of additional weight, when present.  So I want to see a "tall, willowy" creature that has a male human sized head and torso, short, twisted, heavily muscled limbs, and weights 169 lbs or less.

And just to stop the likely rebuttal, when I was 18 (in the year in question, as it happens), I was 5' 8.5" which was then average height of an American male. I have rather short, muscled legs for my height, but an above average wingspan, with underdeveloped shoulders and little upper arm strength, making me as close a willowy dwarf as a human being can normally get. I weighed 145 lbs. In the next two years, my shoulders grew 4 coat sizes, still no fat, and gained 20 lbs.  At no time would anyone have called me "heavily muscled", let alone "willowy".  There's only so much height can move with a given weight.

Probably the same fruitcakes from BGG who proclaimed that "Dwarves liking beer is racist." Wish I were joking.

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

Specifically, the Peter Jackson adaptation, which resembled a World of Warcraft dwarf way more than any Tolkien dwarf.

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.

I agree that it's not racist. But I also think it's fine to create a dwarf PC who doesn't like beer. That's the issue.

Quote from: Ratman_tf on February 03, 2025, 11:05:59 PM

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

Specifically, the Peter Jackson adaptation, which resembled a World of Warcraft dwarf way more than any Tolkien dwarf.

I agree that Peter Jackson popularized that stereotype, but it existed long before his movies.

In Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, I once watched a player roll maxium height, minimum weight, and the name Thingrim.  I kid you not.

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.

* Yet another example of early infiltration into the hobby. With 20/20 hindsight, Peterson should have kicked them out of the game and told them to find a different hobby.

So no reasoning or evidence whatsoever? Position discarded then.

Quote from: David Johansen on February 03, 2025, 11:46:35 PMIn Warhammer Fantasy Roleplay, I once watched a player roll maxium height, minimum weight, and the name Thingrim.  I kid you not.

I would love to play that character. random generation is the bees knees :-)

He's right. The main reason people play against type is to be wacky and get attention. Wouldn't it be CRAZY if the barbarian was a GNOME??

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 08:06:43 PMIn the original example, the woman says "That's racist", which I think a lot of people are reacting to - but that isn't the general point being made. I don't know the woman in the example, and it's quite possible she was just stupid.

I'm going with "just stupid"

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 11:24:00 PMI agree that Peter Jackson popularized that stereotype, but it existed long before his movies.

Jackson just cribbed the idea from Warhammer.

Who likely stole the idea from some depictions in D&D and as usual blew one aspect totally out of proportion.

Quote from: Omega on February 04, 2025, 02:31:24 PMJackson just cribbed the idea from Warhammer.

Who likely stole the idea from some depictions in D&D and as usual blew one aspect totally out of proportion.

More than one aspect... hands, head, teeth, feet, weapons, etc.  :)    "Heroic" proportions, my ass!   

FWIW, I'm biased as I unabashedly love the Uruk-hai and Moria goblins from the films as they're my favorite fantasy orc depictions on screen.

Dwarves being drunkards who bear grudges is a stereotype. I'd have no problem with the occasional tea-total, easy-going dwarf. Dwarves being short is genetics. If insisting on genetics isn't allowed, then human characters in any game world should be allowed to have wings. After all, it's a stereotype that humans can't fly.

Also, can a real-world player be racist to a fictional race? Or are the nutters going to have to insist that parties have representatives of all races because "representation matters"? Can githyanki be racist, since they're historically oppressed? Or does that only go back to the '70s or '80s, when they were invented? The mind boggles at the stupidity of this take.

"Stereotype" is an unfortunate choice of words, as it means a trait that is unfairly ascribed to all members of a group even though not all members of the group have it.  It's a loaded word that says the ascription should not be used.  "Type" is a better choice, so I'll just go with that.

The point of playing a nonhuman is that they are _different_.  (Unless you're playing Star Trek, of course)  Playing another race and then ignoring the definition of that race really is pointless. 

Playing against type can be interesting, but only if the type is well established in the game, and has a reasonable effect.  If your elf doesn't act like an elf he likely won't be accepted into elf society, and others won't know how to deal with him either.  Drizz't is a good example.  Drizz't was actually kind of cool.  Unfortunately so many people have played a Drizz't of whatever race so much that it's not cool or interesting at all anymore; it's just trite.

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.

Not be taken seriously, but, if you wanted to get pedantic, I'd expect more dwarves to prefer something more like a watered down rye whiskey since rye is more cold tolerant and so could be grown more easily in the higher altitude mountain climes.

Barley needs warmer climes and so beer would be more of Hobbit and human drink (while the elves drink finely aged fruit wines cultivated from the forests because of course they do).

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.

IF stereotypes are wrong then how come I'm right so often?

Of course not all stereotypes are right nor wrong. But stereotypes that are very often right are based on observations of reality:

It's night, you're walking alone and a man with it's pants mid buttocks is walking towards you. Is it within reason to feel like said man is a danger to you?

In what reality is based said stereotype?

Problem glasses, piercings, unnatural hair color... Chances are it's a feminist.

It's possible the dwarf was suffering from gigantism.

Quote from: Krazz on February 04, 2025, 03:30:44 PMDwarves being drunkards who bear grudges is a stereotype. I'd have no problem with the occasional tea-total, easy-going dwarf. Dwarves being short is genetics. If insisting on genetics isn't allowed, then human characters in any game world should be allowed to have wings. After all, it's a stereotype that humans can't fly.

Real-world humans with the condition of dwarfism are by definition shorter than 4 feet 10 inches tall - so that's an absolute reality. But the genetics of fantasy dwarves presumably varies a lot. The dvergar in Norse mythology are highly magical creatures who aren't even necessarily short, as implied by names like Fullangr (meaning "Tall Enough") and Har (meaning "High"). This is like how the jötun varied from human-sized to mountain-sized.


Real-world humans can have a wide range of adult height from Tom Thumb to NBA stars. But I think there's an often unintentional D&D-ism that humans can vary, but all non-humans are carbon copies of each other. This is probably influenced from having standardized stat blocks.

It's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

I typically ONLY allow human PCs. I broke this rule for my current DragonBane game. As a result, only ONE human in the group. Not that you could tell since the Mallards act human, the wolfkin act human and the players with more traditional non-human races act human... except the dwarf who acts Scottish. LOL.

Playing a non-human is almost always done for some perceived in-game advantage.

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.

Also, playing as a teenager, there was much more of a desire among my friend group to explore heroic archetypes. Eventually, that exploration led to players wanting to express their own original (if not unique) protagonists. Exploring canonical archetypes was done -- we were ready for the next phase.

These are some of the reasons that as a DM I've embraced a more gonzo world, where the races are curdled socially, and the primary distinctions between them are physiological.

This solution doesn't help for those seeking a game or campaign with a more historical tone. That feeling of connection to an ancient past is fun. But the only games I've ever seen that achieved in were human only.

I'd still like to imagine it could be done with elves and dwarves -- Poul Anderson style. But mention those races and players' thoughts run quickly to Tolkien. "Where's the hobbits?" they will ask. Lots of good grounded art might help.

Quote from: jhkim on February 03, 2025, 06:30:27 PMI don't know the woman in the example, and it's quite possible she was just stupid.

Only quite possible?

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.

Also, playing as a teenager, there was much more of a desire among my friend group to explore heroic archetypes. Eventually, that exploration led to players wanting to express their own original (if not unique) protagonists. Exploring canonical archetypes was done -- we were ready for the next phase.

These are some of the reasons that as a DM I've embraced a more gonzo world, where the races are curdled socially, and the primary distinctions between them are physiological.

This solution doesn't help for those seeking a game or campaign with a more historical tone. That feeling of connection to an ancient past is fun. But the only games I've ever seen that achieved in were human only.

I'd still like to imagine it could be done with elves and dwarves -- Poul Anderson style. But mention those races and players' thoughts run quickly to Tolkien. "Where's the hobbits?" they will ask. Lots of good grounded art might help.

I've found the way to handle this is to have non-human races but not a huge list of them. Furthermore, some of the races need to be bog-standard whatever that the players have gotten used to.  Players do need a chance to work through the stages of playing the thing as a stereotype, then play against type, then settle down to really play it.  Doesn't mean that you have to let them be completely stupid and turn the "play against type" into rampant deconstruction of the race and setting.

In other words, the GM still has to say "No!" sometimes.  There's no way to get around that. Nothing but humans is one way to draw the line, but it can be drawn firmly a little more widely than that.  What doesn't work is to have 12-15 races at the same time, all chasing surface exotic. 

Finally, this is where some thought in variant races can really help.  In my campaign right now, I've got 6 races.  Besides humans, the dwarves are very based (on purpose) and the elves are a bit more exotic at the expense of some more serious mechanical restriction.  Net is that we get a rare elf by someone who wants to explore those differences even with that mechanic drawback, while dwarves are a bit more popular than heretofore, especially among players that are fine to go with "short, tough, gruff" human. Meanwhile, the other 3 races are my own creation, with a mix of advantages and disadvantages, and are more than enough to satisfy those players craving novelty. As characters die or retire and get replaced, we are starting to see people delve into them a little bit.  If we had 12 novelty races, it would be all stereotype, all the time, because the volume would be overwhelming. A player needs time and space in the campaign to play with the character.

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.

* Yet another example of early infiltration into the hobby. With 20/20 hindsight, Peterson should have kicked them out of the game and told them to find a different hobby.

Isn't this an extension of the "blackface" question? According to its governing axiom, no one should actually "act," but, rather, only a Type can play that same Type. Thus, only Queer can play Queer, Black Black, Jew Jew, etc. Anything else is "queerface," "blackface," "jewface," etc.

Here is a stunning example of successful actual acting for your pleasure: (https://youtu.be/OW82AddEgZk)

So, are you willing in your AD&D games to play "dwarfface"? If no, then you must admit dwarves (much less actual dwarfs!) can be anything men can be. If yes, then you must admit dwarves are Types. They can have a range of natural variations, but, they themselves are necessarily variant from the standard which we derive from the primary world, men.

The same could be said, taking "men" to mean male, of "womanface," which has seemed to have slinked through our defenses and become acceptable, but only on the proviso that sexual bifurcation is purely cosmetic (and with the "trans," now purely arbitary and steretypical and transcendable). Thus, Type has already been excised from AD&D, in the sex dimension, so, it shouldn't come as a major surprise to any avid observer that the race dimension should be so excised, also.

If we wanted to oppose this, and reinstate Type, then we ought to start with sex type, as I commented on here (https://www.therpgsite.com/design-development-and-gameplay/how-would-you-represent-sex-differences-in-dd-mechanics/msg1298330/#msg1298330).

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AM

Quote from: Krazz on February 04, 2025, 03:30:44 PMDwarves being drunkards who bear grudges is a stereotype. I'd have no problem with the occasional tea-total, easy-going dwarf. Dwarves being short is genetics. If insisting on genetics isn't allowed, then human characters in any game world should be allowed to have wings. After all, it's a stereotype that humans can't fly.

Real-world humans with the condition of dwarfism are by definition shorter than 4 feet 10 inches tall - so that's an absolute reality. But the genetics of fantasy dwarves presumably varies a lot. The dvergar in Norse mythology are highly magical creatures who aren't even necessarily short, as implied by names like Fullangr (meaning "Tall Enough") and Har (meaning "High"). This is like how the jötun varied from human-sized to mountain-sized.


Real-world humans can have a wide range of adult height from Tom Thumb to NBA stars. But I think there's an often unintentional D&D-ism that humans can vary, but all non-humans are carbon copies of each other. This is probably influenced from having standardized stat blocks.

It's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

BUT we're not talking about IRL are we?
As for Dwarves liking their booze...

I'm a Mexican, would you find it reasonable to assume it VERY likely I like my food Spicy?

It's a cultural thing, not a racial one, take a Mexican orphan, adopted by some Norwegian couple and raised back there. Chances are that person doesn't like it's food spicy, celebrate our independence, like Mariachi music, etc...

But for some reason "anti-racists" equate race to culture.

Now, even here there are people who don't eat spicy food, who don't like our regional music, etc. Because there's individual variations within a culture, but it's not wrong to assume that an individual from said culture shares the culture's traits.

Now, height ISN'T a cultural thing, take the Norwegian raised Mexican baby, he/she will be as tall as his genetics allow, probably taller than his/her parents taking into account that nutrition plays a role in that.

Now, in D&D/Middle Earth Dwarves AREN'T a human culture, they are a race, and yes, race is real, regardless of where you raise a pygmy baby and how well you feed it it will never be as tall as the rest of humanity, because it's genetics play a role.

So, saying that Dwarves can be as tall as humans is STUPID and (given that she said it was raicismism) woke. But I repeat myself.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AM

Quote from: Krazz on February 04, 2025, 03:30:44 PMDwarves being drunkards who bear grudges is a stereotype. I'd have no problem with the occasional tea-total, easy-going dwarf. Dwarves being short is genetics. If insisting on genetics isn't allowed, then human characters in any game world should be allowed to have wings. After all, it's a stereotype that humans can't fly.

Real-world humans with the condition of dwarfism are by definition shorter than 4 feet 10 inches tall - so that's an absolute reality. But the genetics of fantasy dwarves presumably varies a lot. The dvergar in Norse mythology are highly magical creatures who aren't even necessarily short, as implied by names like Fullangr (meaning "Tall Enough") and Har (meaning "High"). This is like how the jötun varied from human-sized to mountain-sized.

Yes, real world humans vary in size (though random charts for height generation tend to stay within smaller ranges). I'm not sure why you're bringing in a real-world religion; if dwarves in a fictional setting are within a certain height range, they're within a certain height range.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMReal-world humans can have a wide range of adult height from Tom Thumb to NBA stars. But I think there's an often unintentional D&D-ism that humans can vary, but all non-humans are carbon copies of each other. This is probably influenced from having standardized stat blocks.

Tom Thumb is fictional, and no adult human has ever been recorded as close to as short as Tom Thumb. Recorded adult human heights range from 1'9" to 8'11". I don't think that we want dwarves or other non-humans to be carbon copies, but we want some verisimilitude. Adult domestic cats range in size too, but that doesn't mean they aren't all shorter than your average human. There's a reason that short humans were named dwarfs, and it's not that some were tall.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMIt's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

Nobody is saying that dwarves should all be exactly the same height, or have the same personality. Dwarves are down in RPG books as being short, and if players want to play tall and willowy characters, they've got elves and half-elves. If every race looks and acts the same, then what's the point of having them instead of everyone being human?

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMThe dvergar in Norse mythology are highly magical creatures who aren't even necessarily short, as implied by names like Fullangr (meaning "Tall Enough") and Har (meaning "High").

See, this is why you can't have a conversation with people like jhkim.

I did my graduate work in English Lit, specializing in Anglo-Saxon and Old Icelandic literature.  In fact, I have a copy of Snorri Sturluson's Prose Edda in the original Old Icelandic sitting on the bookshelf right next to me.  So I know, with 100% certainty, that you have no idea what you are talking about.  First, Fullangr (assuming you don't use the possible "Fúllangr", as the diacritical above the "u" is uncertain, which would translate to roughly "large smell") is closer to "grown enough" or "mature enough" than physical height.  It is thought this could refer to the dwarf's size or physical (sexual) maturity, but no clear information remains.  If size, it is very probably an example of the Norse dry wit, and we could expect the dwarf to be smaller than normal (but "grown enough").  There's absolutely not enough information extant to draw the conclusion that this dwarf was taller than normal.

As for "Hár" (or "Hárr"), this name/adjective is also used to describe Oðin.  By "high" it refers to status or power, not physical height.

Now, I wouldn't expect the average poster on internet message boards to know any of this.  So it's not jhkim's ignorance that offends me (I expect it).  It's his willingness to use information that he knows himself to be out of his knowledge base as "evidence" in an argument.  He's throwing spaghetti at the wall and hoping some sticks.  He didn't say, "I've heard some dwarves in Norse mythology had names that might suggest they were taller than we thought."  Oh no, he asserts the names imply dwarves "aren't even necessarily short."  He treats the information as if it is ironclad evidence of his point.

He's like the person who spouts statistics, hoping those that don't know enough will be cowed by them, even when he knows the statistics don't mean what is being asserted.  Oh, wait!  He does that, too!

So, no, in Norse mythology dwarves were small, ugly, and dirty, as a general rule (otherwise Freya getting boned by four wouldn't be so horrifying/amusing).  Stop just Googling shit and throwing the first response that says what you like up there as if it is evidence.  Because it makes you look even more like a fool...

Quote from: Krazz on February 05, 2025, 03:07:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMReal-world humans can have a wide range of adult height from Tom Thumb to NBA stars. But I think there's an often unintentional D&D-ism that humans can vary, but all non-humans are carbon copies of each other. This is probably influenced from having standardized stat blocks.

Tom Thumb is fictional, and no adult human has ever been recorded as close to as short as Tom Thumb. Recorded adult human heights range from 1'9" to 8'11". I don't think that we want dwarves or other non-humans to be carbon copies, but we want some verisimilitude. Adult domestic cats range in size too, but that doesn't mean they aren't all shorter than your average human. There's a reason that short humans were named dwarfs, and it's not that some were tall.

Just to clarify, I meant Charles Stratton who went by the stage name "General Tom Thumb" - not the fairy tale. My bad for not clarifying that. As for verisimilitude -- it's true that cats don't vary in size that much, but humans vary a lot as you noted, and dogs vary even more - ranging from the smallest chihuahua to the biggest English mastiff.

(https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2015/9/images/tallest-and-shortest-dogs-header-398399.jpg)

I'm reminded of one of my favorite GURPS books - GURPS Goblins by Malcolm Dale and Klaude Thomas. It is hilarious parody of Georgian England, and on page 8 it helps convey goblins in that world by describing the tallest and shortest.

QuoteThe Tallest Goblin
The tallest goblin in London is Mr. Zion Rheese-Jones, of no fixed abode, generally to be found in the area of Covent Garden Market. He is 12 feet 4 inches tall in his socks, and weight 530 lbs. In his childhood he lived over a laundy, and was frequently hung on the washing line by the hair, to scare away birds. His mother is believed to have been frightened into labor by a stampeding giraffe at the Zoological Gardens, bu this tale has not been confirmed by any actual witnesses to the event. Mr. Rheese-Jones makes his living by threatening other goblins in the street.

The Shortest Goblin
The shortest mature adult goblin in London is believed to be Mr. Ahab Godwilling, a rat-catcher from Whitefriars, who is just 14 inches tall and weighs 8 lbs. He is not reknowned for cleverness, but has a good spirit, and earns a very comfortable living by chasing rats in their own burrows, saving himself the expense of keeping ferrets. He is assisted by a strapping young terrier named BLessed Saint Jonah, who not only catches the rats flushed out by Mr. Godwilling, but also prevents passersby from stepping on his master when he resurfaces. Mr. Godwilling may unfortunately no longer be the shortest goblin in London. He was recently employed to catch rats in a theater in Whitefriars, followed one into the walls, and has not been seen since.

The Heaviest Goblin
Mr. Zane laGoombe, the heaviest goblin on record in London, weight 882 lbs. He is literally taller when lying on his back than when standing on his feet. He is the proprietor of a large, reknowned club in Pall Mall, as well as several successful liquor retail establishments, and spends his time eating, drinking, and rolling about laughing at the misfortunes of others in an odious manner.

The point being, it's absolutely possible for nonhumans to vary in size even more than humans do - both in reality, and most certainly in fantasy worlds.

Quote from: Krazz on February 05, 2025, 03:07:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMIt's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

Nobody is saying that dwarves should all be exactly the same height, or have the same personality. Dwarves are down in RPG books as being short, and if players want to play tall and willowy characters, they've got elves and half-elves. If every race looks and acts the same, then what's the point of having them instead of everyone being human?

Races can be different on average while still having overlap in traits like height and weight as well as traits like Strength, Dexterity, and so forth.

Let's say I'm playing AD&D, and I roll a 16 Strength for my halfling - so now he's stronger than most humans. Does that mean that now there's no point to him being a halfling?

The same apparently goes for RuneQuest. In RQ2, I could roll a dwarf with SIZ 12, such that he's taller than the average human. Does that mean there's no point to his being a dwarf?


As for what the point of having nonhuman races is -- this is a game for fun, not a political treatise. "I like it" is a good enough reason to have nonhumans of any sort. In many sci-fi franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars and Doctor Who, there are a bunch of alien races that are only cosmetically different than human. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. I've run lots of fun games in all those settings.

Regarding dwarves -- I'm playing in a weird cyberpunk Norse myth game currently, and in the GM's background, the dvergar (Norse for dwarf) are only about an inch or two shorter than humans on average. With variation, it's easy for a dvergar to be taller than a human. Below I link to the dvergar description on our campaign wiki. There are other differences from being a dvergar, though, like needing to eat fire.

http://clanless.wikidot.com/dvergar

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 05, 2025, 05:14:44 PMSo, no, in Norse mythology dwarves were small, ugly, and dirty, as a general rule (otherwise Freya getting boned by four wouldn't be so horrifying/amusing).  Stop just Googling shit and throwing the first response that says what you like up there as if it is evidence.  Because it makes you look even more like a fool...

Persephone was horrified at getting married to Hades. Does that mean that Hades was short?


It's fine to run a game where the dvergar are all dirty, ugly, and small -- but the truth is that no one know exactly what the old Norse thought about dvergar. They are rarely mentioned, and their physical height is generally not described. They live underground and are greedy and twisted. For what it's worth, I've read a dozen or so of the Norse sagas and eddas, though I don't have a degree in it.

The modern image of "dwarf" is most certainly not what the original dvergar were pictured as.

In general, successive versions over the centuries in Christian Europe kept making pagan supernatural creatures smaller and smaller -- perhaps trying to diminish their importance in people's imaginations. What were originally conceived as powerful beings were diminished over time to being tiny spirits that drank milk from saucers and perhaps helped shoemakers. That happens with elves, dwarfs, and many other fae beings in many countries. Tolkien reinvented this by making his elves tall. Prior to Tolkien in the modern age, elves were conceived of more like Santa's elves or Keebler elves.

Quote from: Eirikrautha on February 05, 2025, 05:14:44 PMSee, this is why you can't have a conversation with people like jhkim.

Oh, I don't know.  This time is kind of funny.  I want to see how many times he tries Motte and Bailey mixed with moving the goal posts in one topic.  Can we get the record this time!  Tune in next week to find out!

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 03, 2025, 05:20:28 PMYou need roughly 19 instances of the type before going against type has any punch.  After someone has played the typical elf, dwarf, or whatever 19 times in my campaign, I'm happy for them to break out a little. :D

Only sort of kidding.  It doesn't need to be that many, because other people are playing the races too, not to mention NPCs.  Still, a dwarf that is noticeably, slightly taller or shorter than average is great. Trying to change it into something else is just another way to try to wreck the setting, and shouldn't be tolerated any more than trying to bring in gunpowder where it doesn't exist.

You say that it's OK for a dwarf to be taller or shorter than average. So what's game-breaking versus what's OK?

For example, by the RQ2 rules that Ruprecht posted earlier, a dwarf with 2d6 SIZ could range from being 2 feet tall (SIZ 2) to being 3 inches taller than human average (SIZ 12). Is that wrong? If so, then what is right for allowed variation?


Personally, I don't have a general answer for this, because it would depend on the game-world and my vision of it. In my most recent setting, the Incan-inspired "Land of New Horizons", dwarves are the underground race that was there before the Sun and Moon were put in the sky. Their typical height would be like standard D&D dwarves (4 to 5 feet), but I never thought about how much variation there would be. They are distinct from Tolkien dwarves, so I'd want to work on their look and varieties.

Quote from: Godsmonkey on February 05, 2025, 07:14:59 AMI typically ONLY allow human PCs. I broke this rule for my current DragonBane game. As a result, only ONE human in the group. Not that you could tell since the Mallards act human, the wolfkin act human and the players with more traditional non-human races act human... except the dwarf who acts Scottish. LOL.

Playing a non-human is almost always done for some perceived in-game advantage.

A large part of it for sure.

The Half-Orc used to be played a Lot. Then its baked in strength bonus was taken away. Straight to old and busted.

Enter the new hotness: The Dragonborn. It breathes fire.

When the ability to breath fire is taken away, the Dragonborn will become the new old and busted...

Quote from: Brad on February 03, 2025, 07:47:39 PMIt's almost uncanny...

Like I said...

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

I don't and I haven't seen it in the groups I've played with either.  That is admittedly a small part of the universe though

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 03, 2025, 08:50:49 PMIn RQ3, the size table in the main book is supplemented by the creature definitions. Since RQ3 was trying to get away from the automatic Glorantha setting, also supporting a "fantasy Earth" setting, the main books are just about humans. 

It's true that the same Size rules are used throughout, part of the reason for switching to mass.  However, this is what the start of the dwarf entry has to say on page 16 of the Creature Book:  "Their bodies and heads are nearly as large as those of humans, but their limbs are short, powerfully-muscled, and often twisted." Later, it goes on to note that male and human dwarfs do not differ in size or strength, but "Dwarf women are even more rarely seen than the men."

In the Players Book, page 44, the RQ size equivalency table has size 9 at 121-129 lbs, then size 12 at 156-168 lbs.

Hmm, the average human gets around 50% of their height from their legs and feet. Furthermore, most people have a "wingspan" (arms stretched out, finger-tip to finger-tip) within an inch or two of their height.  Muscle is a large portion of additional weight, when present.  So I want to see a "tall, willowy" creature that has a male human sized head and torso, short, twisted, heavily muscled limbs, and weights 169 lbs or less.

And just to stop the likely rebuttal, when I was 18 (in the year in question, as it happens), I was 5' 8.5" which was then average height of an American male. I have rather short, muscled legs for my height, but an above average wingspan, with underdeveloped shoulders and little upper arm strength, making me as close a willowy dwarf as a human being can normally get. I weighed 145 lbs. In the next two years, my shoulders grew 4 coat sizes, still no fat, and gained 20 lbs.  At no time would anyone have called me "heavily muscled", let alone "willowy".  There's only so much height can move with a given weight.

I feel like I'm imitating Brad repeating myself, but hey, whatever.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 05, 2025, 09:28:30 PMI feel like I'm imitating Brad repeating myself, but hey, whatever.

You might as well just not even bother as we all know how this is going to go.

Quote from: Brad on February 05, 2025, 09:56:09 PMYou might as well just not even bother as we all know how this is going to go.

Depends. There are more holes in the arguments this time around, more obvious side jumps.  If it was really an AI writing arguments based on the history of posts on this forum, would we be able to tell the difference? 

I think the point of non-human races existing in fictional settings, particularly interactive media like tabletop roleplaying games, is the circumstances that arise from their immutable characteristics - Dwarves being short and able to see in low light, Elves being ancient and able to see long distances, Wookies being capable of remarkable strength but incapable of common speech, etc. When you strip those innate characteristics away, you're just left with a human with another name. There's no point to their existence.

Quote from: Steven Mitchell on February 03, 2025, 08:50:49 PMIn RQ3, the size table in the main book is supplemented by the creature definitions. Since RQ3 was trying to get away from the automatic Glorantha setting, also supporting a "fantasy Earth" setting, the main books are just about humans.

Steven - You're citing RQ3 and the description of dwarves in its "Fantasy Earth" setting - which is the default for the rules. Glorantha is detailed separately in Book 5. I was citing RQ2 and the Glorantha setting. I don't think there's any inherent disagreement here - they are two different versions of dwarves. In RQ2, dwarves are SIZ 2d6 and elves are SIZ 2d4+4. So elves average higher but they both have max SIZ 12.

I created a thread called "What should dvergar/dwarves be like?" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-should-dvergardwarves-be-like/) for dwarf-specific discussion, which is a split from the more general question of the OP about reasons to play non-humans.

Well, of course. If you want to play a tall beardless dwarf, you're still USING a stereotype by the way of subversion.

But, if you play a mage, you are also playing a stereotype. Or paladin. And so on.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 05:18:46 PM

Quote from: Krazz on February 05, 2025, 03:07:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMReal-world humans can have a wide range of adult height from Tom Thumb to NBA stars. But I think there's an often unintentional D&D-ism that humans can vary, but all non-humans are carbon copies of each other. This is probably influenced from having standardized stat blocks.

Tom Thumb is fictional, and no adult human has ever been recorded as close to as short as Tom Thumb. Recorded adult human heights range from 1'9" to 8'11". I don't think that we want dwarves or other non-humans to be carbon copies, but we want some verisimilitude. Adult domestic cats range in size too, but that doesn't mean they aren't all shorter than your average human. There's a reason that short humans were named dwarfs, and it's not that some were tall.

Just to clarify, I meant Charles Stratton who went by the stage name "General Tom Thumb" - not the fairy tale. My bad for not clarifying that. As for verisimilitude -- it's true that cats don't vary in size that much, but humans vary a lot as you noted, and dogs vary even more - ranging from the smallest chihuahua to the biggest English mastiff.

(https://www.guinnessworldrecords.com/news/2015/9/images/tallest-and-shortest-dogs-header-398399.jpg)

I'm reminded of one of my favorite GURPS books - GURPS Goblins by Malcolm Dale and Klaude Thomas. It is hilarious parody of Georgian England, and on page 8 it helps convey goblins in that world by describing the tallest and shortest.

QuoteThe Tallest Goblin
The tallest goblin in London is Mr. Zion Rheese-Jones, of no fixed abode, generally to be found in the area of Covent Garden Market. He is 12 feet 4 inches tall in his socks, and weight 530 lbs. In his childhood he lived over a laundy, and was frequently hung on the washing line by the hair, to scare away birds. His mother is believed to have been frightened into labor by a stampeding giraffe at the Zoological Gardens, bu this tale has not been confirmed by any actual witnesses to the event. Mr. Rheese-Jones makes his living by threatening other goblins in the street.

The Shortest Goblin
The shortest mature adult goblin in London is believed to be Mr. Ahab Godwilling, a rat-catcher from Whitefriars, who is just 14 inches tall and weighs 8 lbs. He is not reknowned for cleverness, but has a good spirit, and earns a very comfortable living by chasing rats in their own burrows, saving himself the expense of keeping ferrets. He is assisted by a strapping young terrier named BLessed Saint Jonah, who not only catches the rats flushed out by Mr. Godwilling, but also prevents passersby from stepping on his master when he resurfaces. Mr. Godwilling may unfortunately no longer be the shortest goblin in London. He was recently employed to catch rats in a theater in Whitefriars, followed one into the walls, and has not been seen since.

The Heaviest Goblin
Mr. Zane laGoombe, the heaviest goblin on record in London, weight 882 lbs. He is literally taller when lying on his back than when standing on his feet. He is the proprietor of a large, reknowned club in Pall Mall, as well as several successful liquor retail establishments, and spends his time eating, drinking, and rolling about laughing at the misfortunes of others in an odious manner.

The point being, it's absolutely possible for nonhumans to vary in size even more than humans do - both in reality, and most certainly in fantasy worlds.

Quote from: Krazz on February 05, 2025, 03:07:22 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMIt's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

Nobody is saying that dwarves should all be exactly the same height, or have the same personality. Dwarves are down in RPG books as being short, and if players want to play tall and willowy characters, they've got elves and half-elves. If every race looks and acts the same, then what's the point of having them instead of everyone being human?

Races can be different on average while still having overlap in traits like height and weight as well as traits like Strength, Dexterity, and so forth.

Let's say I'm playing AD&D, and I roll a 16 Strength for my halfling - so now he's stronger than most humans. Does that mean that now there's no point to him being a halfling?

The same apparently goes for RuneQuest. In RQ2, I could roll a dwarf with SIZ 12, such that he's taller than the average human. Does that mean there's no point to his being a dwarf?


As for what the point of having nonhuman races is -- this is a game for fun, not a political treatise. "I like it" is a good enough reason to have nonhumans of any sort. In many sci-fi franchises like Star Trek and Star Wars and Doctor Who, there are a bunch of alien races that are only cosmetically different than human. There's nothing inherently wrong with that. I've run lots of fun games in all those settings.

Regarding dwarves -- I'm playing in a weird cyberpunk Norse myth game currently, and in the GM's background, the dvergar (Norse for dwarf) are only about an inch or two shorter than humans on average. With variation, it's easy for a dvergar to be taller than a human. Below I link to the dvergar description on our campaign wiki. There are other differences from being a dvergar, though, like needing to eat fire.

http://clanless.wikidot.com/dvergar

I'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is saying that as a GM, you're not allowed to have a race that varies in size as much as dogs do. Have them vary between ant and dragon size if you like, just have fun. The question is whether GMs can conversely choose to have smaller variation in a fictional race; my example was the domestic cat. If I allow a race that's the size of domestic cats, I think it's entirely within GM fiat to say a player can't be liger-sized.

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on February 06, 2025, 09:28:44 AMI think the point of non-human races existing in fictional settings, particularly interactive media like tabletop roleplaying games, is the circumstances that arise from their immutable characteristics - Dwarves being short and able to see in low light, Elves being ancient and able to see long distances, Wookies being capable of remarkable strength but incapable of common speech, etc. When you strip those innate characteristics away, you're just left with a human with another name. There's no point to their existence.

^THIS^

Once you start down the road of: "There's no reason a fantasy race can't be just as physically and culturally diverse as humans 'because fantasy'..." all you are doing is making more humans.

StarTrek, while also being thoroughly guilty of 'humans in a mask' syndrome, also has a few examples of iconic 'races' done right.

Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi, etc. In a ST RPG if you play a Vulcan, everyone knows what to expect.

One could do whole lot worse in your fantasy worldbuilding than to say your Elves are vulcan, Dwarves klingon, and Halflings ferengi.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 02:03:13 PMSteven - You're citing RQ3 and the description of dwarves in its "Fantasy Earth" setting

Don't think you digested my quote fully, even the second time. Furthermore, I only cited RQ3 because *you* brought it up as a rebuttal to someone citing RQ2. The net effect of RQ2 or 3 is exactly what everyone else has been saying, there are no grounds in the rules, logic, or common sense for the proposed character.  You are just throwing things back and forth hoping no one will notice you have made no case.  Which is the only reason I even bother to type up that RQ3 reply in the first place.  I didn't need to look in the RQ3 rules to know it stupid.

Quote from: Krazz on February 06, 2025, 03:21:28 PMI'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is saying that as a GM, you're not allowed to have a race that varies in size as much as dogs do. Have them vary between ant and dragon size if you like, just have fun. The question is whether GMs can conversely choose to have smaller variation in a fictional race; my example was the domestic cat. If I allow a race that's the size of domestic cats, I think it's entirely within GM fiat to say a player can't be liger-sized.

That sounds very close to what I said earlier.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMIt's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

We agree that it's within the GM's power to say that all dwarves conform to stereotypes, or cluster narrowly around stereotypes.

But the point with regards to the OP is this -- if I as a GM allow dwarf PCs who are non-stereotypical, is there something wrong with that? Is the only valid reason to play a nonhuman to use stereotypes?

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:14:30 PMIs the only valid reason to play a nonhuman to use stereotypes?

Yes.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 06, 2025, 03:57:26 PM

Quote from: SmallMountaineer on February 06, 2025, 09:28:44 AMI think the point of non-human races existing in fictional settings, particularly interactive media like tabletop roleplaying games, is the circumstances that arise from their immutable characteristics - Dwarves being short and able to see in low light, Elves being ancient and able to see long distances, Wookies being capable of remarkable strength but incapable of common speech, etc. When you strip those innate characteristics away, you're just left with a human with another name. There's no point to their existence.

^THIS^

Once you start down the road of: "There's no reason a fantasy race can't be just as physically and culturally diverse as humans 'because fantasy'..." all you are doing is making more humans.

I cited earlier GURPS Goblins, and their height variation from Mr. Zion Rheese-Jones at 12 foot 4 inches; to Mr. Ahab Godwilling at 14 inches tall. A typical illustration from the book is here

(http://i.imgur.com/hoChHmb.png)
cf. https://www.tgdmb.com/phpBB3/viewtopic.php?t=55866

Would you say that these goblins are just more humans? I think it's the opposite. The extreme variation of these goblins is an inhuman trait.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 06, 2025, 03:57:26 PMStarTrek, while also being thoroughly guilty of 'humans in a mask' syndrome, also has a few examples of iconic 'races' done right.

Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi, etc. In a ST RPG if you play a Vulcan, everyone knows what to expect.

One could do whole lot worse in your fantasy worldbuilding than to say your Elves are vulcan, Dwarves klingon, and Halflings ferengi.

I like Star Trek in general, but IMO their aliens are probably the weakest part. There's nothing non-human about being Klingon - they're just a stand-in for a human stereotype. You could switch them to being biological humans of a different culture, and virtually nothing would change. (Heck, they are even shown to interbreed with humans in B'elanna Torres.)

I think it's far more interesting to look at aliens as being their own things with their own range different than human -- rather than just being a narrow subset of human. In my own Star Trek games (though its been a while), I've enjoyed exploring the more non-human side of aliens.

For example, I had two Vulcan NPC crewmen who shared a single body - using the katra-hosting featured in the Star Trek films. One was a low-ranking officer, and one was a centuries-old scientist and philosopher who was officially a civilian contractor. I think their dynamic did a lot to make them more than just clones of Spock. They had some similarity to the Trill, who also aren't a simple human stereotype.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:56:56 PMWould you say that these goblins are just more humans? I think it's the opposite. The extreme variation of these goblins is an inhuman trait.

Apples and oranges false equivalency.

Well done.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:56:56 PMThere's nothing non-human about being Klingon - they're just a stand-in for a human stereotype. ...

Umm, That's the entire point.

(https://i.makeagif.com/media/5-26-2022/ESlMtE.gif)

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:14:30 PM

Quote from: Krazz on February 06, 2025, 03:21:28 PMI'm not sure what your point is. Nobody is saying that as a GM, you're not allowed to have a race that varies in size as much as dogs do. Have them vary between ant and dragon size if you like, just have fun. The question is whether GMs can conversely choose to have smaller variation in a fictional race; my example was the domestic cat. If I allow a race that's the size of domestic cats, I think it's entirely within GM fiat to say a player can't be liger-sized.

That sounds very close to what I said earlier.

Quote from: jhkim on February 05, 2025, 01:14:00 AMIt's up to each GM to decide what variation to allow. If the GM says that all dwarves are exactly 4 feet tall and they are all gruff, beer-drinking, axe-wielding miners - then that's what they are. But I think it's interesting to have non-humans to have variety among them. That goes equally for personality as well as physical traits.

We agree that it's within the GM's power to say that all dwarves conform to stereotypes, or cluster narrowly around stereotypes.

But the point with regards to the OP is this -- if I as a GM allow dwarf PCs who are non-stereotypical, is there something wrong with that? Is the only valid reason to play a nonhuman to use stereotypes?

I'm not sure that I'd call being short a stereotype if all dwarves are short. It's simply a statement of reality. Blue whales are large; that's not a stereotype.

But to return to the original post:

QuoteI made some mention that her PC was short and she took umbrage.

So 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.

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.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 06, 2025, 05:13:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:56:56 PMWould you say that these goblins are just more humans? I think it's the opposite. The extreme variation of these goblins is an inhuman trait.

Strawman to apples and oranges false equivalency.

That isn't a counter-argument. I think GURPS Goblins is a good example of non-humans who don't have a simple stereotype that they correspond to, even in basic size. How does it fall in your categorization of good nonhumans vs bad nonhumans?

Quote from: Jaeger on February 06, 2025, 05:13:06 PM

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:56:56 PMThere's nothing non-human about being Klingon - they're just a stand-in for a human stereotype. ...

Umm, That's the entire point.

Right. And I'm saying that I find it dull - and certainly not the one true way that all non-humans in all games should be. The most interesting take on Klingons that I've seen was John M. Ford's The Final Reflection, where the story took place entirely within the Klingon Empire, so we got to see a range of different Klingons - i.e. they were not just one human stereotype.

(https://images-na.ssl-images-amazon.com/images/S/compressed.photo.goodreads.com/books/1388927635i/216722.jpg) (https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/216722.The_Final_Reflection)

EDITED TO ADD: Speaking a little more broadly about Star Trek aliens -- I've run a bunch of Star Trek games and I've liked it. However, Star Trek depended on regularly introducing new alien species for variety. Spock was interesting as a character when he was introduced, but the Vulcans after him were very one-note. So instead the creators of new shows keep introducing new species and types, with each new crew having at least one new alien type: Caitian, Edoan, Android, Klingon, Changeling, Talaxian, Denobulan, etc. In a Star Trek game, I like to have create-an-alien rules rather than trying to exhaustively list out all possible races.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 06:04:29 PM...
That isn't a counter-argument. I think GURPS Goblins is a good example of non-humans who don't have a simple stereotype that they correspond to, even in basic size. How does it fall in your categorization of good nonhumans vs bad nonhumans?

Because it is a rejection of your premise.

I could smell the set-up trying to score 'gotcha' points from a mile away:
"But, but, but, their extreme physical differences from real-life people means it can't be people!"

Did you think no one would click on the link that explained what 'gurps goblins' was all about?

ROTFL...

In GURPS Goblins; You play PC 'Goblins' that are a satirical stand-in for people.

It is literally a joke game satirizing English culture and how crappy life was in Georgian london.

Kick rocks.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:56:56 PMRight. And I'm saying that I find it dull ...

Because of course you do.

Quote from: Jaeger on February 06, 2025, 07:16:34 PMI could smell the set-up trying to score 'gotcha' points from a mile away:
"But, but, but, their extreme physical differences from real-life people means it can't be people!"

Did you think no one would click on the link that explained what 'gurps goblins' was all about?

ROTFL...

In GURPS Goblins; You play PC 'Goblins' that are a satirical stand-in for people.

It is literally a joke game satirizing English culture and how crappy life was in Georgian london.

Yes, GURPS Goblins is a literary satire of Georgian London. I'd love for more people to learn about it and play it - it's a terrific and hilarious game setting.

The point is, a goblin isn't one stereotype. A goblin could represent all sorts of different people. Further, if I am playing an RPG, my experience will be very different if I play a 14-inch-goblin compared to if I'm playing a human PC with a specific personality or culture. If I just say "I'm playing a goblin" - that doesn't say much about what my PC is like.

That contrasts with what you said about what were races done right:

Quote from: Jaeger on February 06, 2025, 03:57:26 PMStarTrek, while also being thoroughly guilty of 'humans in a mask' syndrome, also has a few examples of iconic 'races' done right.

Vulcans, Klingons, Ferengi, etc. In a ST RPG if you play a Vulcan, everyone knows what to expect.

One could do whole lot worse in your fantasy worldbuilding than to say your Elves are vulcan, Dwarves klingon, and Halflings ferengi.

You state this as doing non-humans right. So what is doing them wrong? I've given a bunch of examples during this thread.

1) A Vulcan character who has an extra katra - effectively two different people in one body.

2) An elf PC who was Romanized and became a devoted immigrant - calling himself Antonius Publius Eldarus and rejecting the tree-hugging ways of his former culture.

3) Ten Middle Earth dwarf PCs ranging from a precocious thieving princess to a two-fisted tavern-keeper to an idealistic scholar. Most of these are not what most people would expect of a dwarf. cf. https://docs.google.com/document/d/1Q6e2BrdLLRfpV-IZ9BvKwYR2rWNpPG9pkuciEACRyTg/edit

4) GURPS Goblin PCs and NPCs.

For all of these, they don't follow the rule "if you play X, everyone knows what to expect".

I don't have a problem with purely stereotypical PCs, but I also enjoy many PCs who break from stereotypes (both human and nonhuman).

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 09:09:57 PMa goblin isn't one stereotype. A goblin could represent all sorts of different people.

I don't care what a 'goblin' could represent.

There is no reason to play a nonhuman character except to use stereotypes.

You find that dull. I don't. End of discussion.

Quote from: jhkim on February 06, 2025, 04:56:56 PMI think it's far more interesting to look at aliens as being their own things with their own range different than human -- rather than just being a narrow subset of human. In my own Star Trek games (though its been a while), I've enjoyed exploring the more non-human side of aliens.

This is exactly my preferred approach.  I'm interested in the roleplaying and behavioral aspect of what it is to be an intelligent nonhuman.  If a character can have the distinguishing characteristics I'm interested in and be a human, I'd rather have him be a human.  Less work and it gets the same job done.  I play a nonhuman to roleplay things that are outside of the human range.  There's nothing inherently wrong with playing a human in a funny suit Star Trek style and skipping to "what are my combat abilities" if that's your cuppa, but I don't find that very interesting.

Greetings!

Hmmm. I don't think I agree with the assumption of there being the only reason to play a non-human Character is to fulfill a stereotype. Certainly, in my Thandor world, Non-Human races have elements that are identifiable as "Human-Like"--that is, in my mind, a kind of requirement for any such creatures to be a Player Character Race, it must be identifiable and relatable. That's important, not just for Player "Buy-In"--but also for myself, as the DM, to make their weird societies and actions somewhat sensible and understandable.

Having said that, many of my Non-Human races have characteristics and traits inspired from real world zoology as well as mythology. These various attributes can make playing a member of such a race very strange and different from anything in normal human experience.

For example, in Thandor, Frog Humanoids have virtually uncontrollable urges to engage in sexual activity en masse, and typically in public, on a regular basis. Male, female, both sexes of the Frog race engage in such behavior. This behavior typically does them no favours whenever they are in a Human settlement.

Elephant Humanoids are primarily Nocturnal--they gain energy boosts and awareness advantage while living and moving at night--while suffering from various penalties and a kind of lethargy during daylight hours. Just imagine how your character would experience life in general through just this particular lens? In addition, Elephant Humanoids can communicate basic emotions sub-sonically, through trunk vocalizations. They also can "hear" other members of their race by listening to the earth, allowing them to determine basic numbers, and direction of travel.

Various other Non-Human races eat various meats, and other substances, including humanoids, as well as raw-meat, and substances that Humans would universally consider gross and inappropriate, except under the most extreme of circumstances. Playing up these kinds of traits and attributes makes playing Non-Human Characters entirely different from somehow just falling in line and playing a "Human Stereotype".

Making your Non-Human races embracing different and interesting character types can require more work and effort from the DM, but such effort and work is very rewarding and worthwhile in my experience. The goal is to achieve Non-Human Race Character types that are relatable and identifiable for Human Players--while at the same time reflecting and embracing racial and cultural traits and attributes that really help to set the Non-Human Character apart, as well as for providing a fun and entertaining game experience.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Let me add a clarification to my original statement - I'm not saying fictional races that do not have distinctively alien characteristics should not exist at all. Star Wars has numerous races whose physiological differences to humans aren't referenced nearly as much as their ancestral perspectives, and everyone accepts them all the same. I'm saying without distinctive, applicable deviations from the human condition, you're being redundant for semblance and style points and not much else.

GURPS goblins is a good example of non-stereotype goblins.

But then again they are goblins in name only, and you need lots of pages to describe their culture, and it is nothing like D&D or myth goblins. They could be elves, aliens or nilbogs.

If you come to any table saying "I want to play a goblin", nobody will assume an Edwardian gentleman.

However, I think I must concede the point that "There is no reason to play a nonhuman except to use stereotypes" is wrong. You can play a nonhuman - for example, a Kryptonian - to justify/experience special powers or traits. That seems to be the case of GURPS goblins.

I mean... it's kind of tricky to *not* anthropomorphize non-humans in a playable or relatable fashion for gaming purposes.

Goblinoids are *meant* to be antagonists that do things we find reprehensible in our protagonist gaming cultures, right? The protagonist-to-protagonist cultural differences *should* have some differences that are enforced. But even within the same races you could split those hairs endlessly by social-class etc.

So from the standpoint of the generalization "all non-humans are just "humans in disguise" - sure, I guess. But as a GM it's my job to make those distinctions matter *even if* the player doesn't want to play them that way. I will make the world react to their "unique" (or uncreative) take on their PC.

I don't like having non-humans just be rubber-suits in my games. I change the context of even my standard realms games to usually enforce cultural differences. For instance elves in my games aren't "frolicky" humans with pointed ears. They are alien and otherworldly. They have ancient hatreds and dislikes from old histories that they have shaped them - for good and bad. And I usually list some of these things out for my players and enforce through the behaviors of the NPC elves. The players are free to comply or not, and suffer the social consequences of it (in whatever form it might take).

Right now, I'm running a Cormyr-based campaign (Graybox edition) - and the half-elves in the party are treated very different. One half-elf is a literal bastard, who knows nothing of his elven parentage, and its treated like shit by the human populace. It is in exact accordance with how Cormyrians (largely human) feel about non-Cormyrians, but more because of his social-rank. He's a bastard of peasant stock. The player in question was taken aback by the general treatment from NPC's. He's like "Wtf dude, I'm a half-elf not a half-orc." By contrast, the other half-elf in the game is a wizard and a Warmage of Cormyr. He's treated pretty neutral - but that's because he wears the robes of a Warmage, which largely overrides everyone's inherent prejudices. Plus he's not a bastard, and his father is a Warmage too.

Mind you this is within a Human culture. If this were Elven, depending on the sub-race of Elves, it would be an entirely different situation. But I don't FORCE players to play a certain way. I give them notes on their respective cultures and I enforce those cultures in-game - and they can either go along with it, or not. But the world reacts to them accordingly.

Honestly, I think this comes down to Sitch's Law, there's a disagreement about what the parties mean by the term "stereotype". I don't think it's a stereotype that dwarves are short and bearded (women included) just as it's not a stereotype that humans have 5 fingers on each of their two hands. As applied, Sandy is right (big surprise), but I wouldn't use the term stereotype in that way.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 07, 2025, 01:11:09 PMHonestly, I think this comes down to Sitch's Law, there's a disagreement about what the parties mean by the term "stereotype". I don't think it's a stereotype that dwarves are short and bearded (women included) just as it's not a stereotype that humans have 5 fingers on each of their two hands. As applied, Sandy is right (big surprise), but I wouldn't use the term stereotype in that way.

Yeah none of us is arguing that you can't have a dwarf who is a dreamer and wants to forego mining gold and instead focus on music. Or a hobbit that seeks adventure instead of gardening...it's that a hobbit is short and mostly squat and likes food, that's what makes them a hobbit. A hobbit wearing boots..? That breaks stereotype and is unusual as hell and could be an interesting character. A 6' tall vegan hobbit who hates nature and eschews comfort is just a self-inserted jackass.

Quote from: tenbones on February 07, 2025, 01:04:52 PMI don't like having non-humans just be rubber-suits in my games. I change the context of even my standard realms games to usually enforce cultural differences. For instance elves in my games aren't "frolicky" humans with pointed ears. They are alien and otherworldly. They have ancient hatreds and dislikes from old histories that they have shaped them - for good and bad. And I usually list some of these things out for my players and enforce through the behaviors of the NPC elves.

Thinking 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.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on February 07, 2025, 01:11:09 PMHonestly, I think this comes down to Sitch's Law, there's a disagreement about what the parties mean by the term "stereotype". I don't think it's a stereotype that dwarves are short and bearded (women included) just as it's not a stereotype that humans have 5 fingers on each of their two hands. As applied, Sandy is right (big surprise), but I wouldn't use the term stereotype in that way.

Words have meaning. My reply was assuming that stereotype meant stereotype.

If you assume that stereotype means just "what is possible in the game-world", then any PC that the GM allows is a stereotype - since the GM defines what is possible. So every PC ever played is a stereotype, which just makes the statement meaningless.

Also, I would totally allow a six-fingered PC, especially if he was a shady character who couldn't explain where he got his wonderful sword. :-)

My elf just wants to be a dentist and not make toys anymore.

Quote from: Tristan on February 07, 2025, 01:40:31 PMMy elf just wants to be a dentist and not make toys anymore.

Get out, you misfit!

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:

(https://www.alancastillo.com/sitebuilder/images/accsg1-848x643.jpg)

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:

(https://www.alancastillo.com/sitebuilder/images/accsg1-848x643.jpg)

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.

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?" (https://www.therpgsite.com/pen-paper-roleplaying-games-rpgs-discussion/what-should-dvergardwarves-be-like/)

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

(https://i.imgur.com/cfE9zf7.png)

The Korobokuru in Gygax's Oriental Adventures, the .

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/img/korobokuru.jpg)

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

Dwarves based on the dokkalfar or svartalfar of Norse myth.

(https://darkshire.net/jhkim/rpg/dnd/img/dokkalfar.jpg)

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

(https://i.ebayimg.com/images/g/RtcAAOSw~bFWGfvR/s-l1600.webp)

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.

Quote from: Two Crows on February 12, 2025, 04:04:37 PMIs this whole topic based upon some lady in the 1980's confusing biological race with "race" as used in a cultural context?

Yes though that confusion is still very much with us today.  They are conflating the way race is used in a fantasy game like D&D with the way race is used in current year racial politics discussions.  A lot of these people are obsessed with race, racial politics and racism, real or imaginary.  This is the lens through which they see everything.  Everything is about race and everything is about racism.  The most obvious proof of this is that they were molified by the change from race to species even though it's an entirely superficial, meaningless change.

Quote from: Two Crows on February 12, 2025, 04:04:37 PMI can't believe things have gotten this bad, lol.

Stick around. You'll become jaded to it all.

In my experience, there are a few common reasons why a played makes a non-human character.

The first is the "humans are boring" crowd.  Some are trying to make their bland character interesting by making it non-human.  They will generally go for the most rare or weird race option.  Quite a few of these have main character syndrome.  For some, it's simple escapism.  They are humans in real life so, when they play a fantasy or sci-fi rpg, they want to be something else.  For some players I have had, that's pretty much all there is to it.

A sizable majority of people pick their race for simple mechanical advantage.  The race's stats and abilities go well with whatever character build they want to do.  Being able to see in the dark is handy.  Every player I have ever had in 5e who wanted to play a Yuan-ti fell into this category.  Having advantage on all saves against spells of spell-like effects from level 1 with no resource cost is really good.  That's why they want to play a Yuan-ti. 

Then there's the furries.  They want to play an anthromorphic animal because that's what they like.  I don't mean pervy fur fetish people though that subset can be hard to spot until they have been in the game a while.  I mean regular people who are fans of media with anthropomorphic animal characters like Redwall, Mouse Guard or the many animated movies that have such characters like Robin Hood or The Secret of NIHM.  They are fans of that and that's what they want to play.

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 08:09:45 AMThen there's the furries.  They want to play an anthromorphic animal because that's what they like.  I don't mean pervy fur fetish people though that subset can be hard to spot until they have been in the game a while.  I mean regular people who are fans of media with anthropomorphic animal characters like Redwall, Mouse Guard or the many animated movies that have such characters like Robin Hood or The Secret of NIHM.  They are fans of that and that's what they want to play.

Another advantage to this is that in a game like Mausritter everyone plays a mouse and stop there, all of the players are playing the same 'stock' race/species and without wiggle room the players are on the same level, yet can customize as they go.

Quote from: bat on February 24, 2025, 03:18:37 PM

Quote from: yosemitemike on February 24, 2025, 08:09:45 AMThen there's the furries.  They want to play an anthromorphic animal because that's what they like.  I don't mean pervy fur fetish people though that subset can be hard to spot until they have been in the game a while.  I mean regular people who are fans of media with anthropomorphic animal characters like Redwall, Mouse Guard or the many animated movies that have such characters like Robin Hood or The Secret of NIHM.  They are fans of that and that's what they want to play.

Another advantage to this is that in a game like Mausritter everyone plays a mouse and stop there, all of the players are playing the same 'stock' race/species and without wiggle room the players are on the same level, yet can customize as they go.

It's a pity the fetishists have tarnished an entire genre by association. I grew up with the Redwall books, and occasionally I consider running something like Hyperborean Mice, but I don't want to do it badly enough to risk either being mistaken for being part of that scene, or having them infiltrate my group.

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 24, 2025, 03:56:35 PMIt's a pity the fetishists have tarnished an entire genre by association. I grew up with the Redwall books, and occasionally I consider running something like Hyperborean Mice, but I don't want to do it badly enough to risk either being mistaken for being part of that scene, or having them infiltrate my group.

Do what you want to, don't let those you disagree with coerce you just because they cannot hold a conversation and meet in the middle and insist that they will 'take our hobby away'. Level with people/ I plan on running Mausritter on campus and someone shows up in a mouse costume we are going into a Monty Python skit real fast.

I thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

And I think that sums up where D&D has gone: from fantasy for adults to fantasy for children. Even the X-cards are an attempt to make everything PG.

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

Quote from: bat on February 24, 2025, 06:35:00 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 24, 2025, 03:56:35 PMIt's a pity the fetishists have tarnished an entire genre by association. I grew up with the Redwall books, and occasionally I consider running something like Hyperborean Mice, but I don't want to do it badly enough to risk either being mistaken for being part of that scene, or having them infiltrate my group.

Do what you want to, don't let those you disagree with coerce you just because they cannot hold a conversation and meet in the middle and insist that they will 'take our hobby away'. Level with people/ I plan on running Mausritter on campus and someone shows up in a mouse costume we are going into a Monty Python skit real fast.

Sadly, I run games for randos on the internet, so I have neither a captive audience nor the ability to easily vette potential players. I'm sure I could do it, but one of the things I've learned about online RPG-ing is that the easiest way to reliably get good players is to be careful about which games you choose to run.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 04:49:03 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

Quote from: bat on February 24, 2025, 06:35:00 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 24, 2025, 03:56:35 PMIt's a pity the fetishists have tarnished an entire genre by association. I grew up with the Redwall books, and occasionally I consider running something like Hyperborean Mice, but I don't want to do it badly enough to risk either being mistaken for being part of that scene, or having them infiltrate my group.

Do what you want to, don't let those you disagree with coerce you just because they cannot hold a conversation and meet in the middle and insist that they will 'take our hobby away'. Level with people/ I plan on running Mausritter on campus and someone shows up in a mouse costume we are going into a Monty Python skit real fast.

Sadly, I run games for randos on the internet, so I have neither a captive audience nor the ability to easily vette potential players. I'm sure I could do it, but one of the things I've learned about online RPG-ing is that the easiest way to reliably get good players is to be careful about which games you choose to run.

Bolding mine.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Which games have come with the worst Players? Which games had the best Players? What criteria are you using for determining what makes a good Player and a bad Player?

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 03, 2025, 08:56:46 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 04:49:03 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

Quote from: bat on February 24, 2025, 06:35:00 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 24, 2025, 03:56:35 PMIt's a pity the fetishists have tarnished an entire genre by association. I grew up with the Redwall books, and occasionally I consider running something like Hyperborean Mice, but I don't want to do it badly enough to risk either being mistaken for being part of that scene, or having them infiltrate my group.

Do what you want to, don't let those you disagree with coerce you just because they cannot hold a conversation and meet in the middle and insist that they will 'take our hobby away'. Level with people/ I plan on running Mausritter on campus and someone shows up in a mouse costume we are going into a Monty Python skit real fast.

Sadly, I run games for randos on the internet, so I have neither a captive audience nor the ability to easily vette potential players. I'm sure I could do it, but one of the things I've learned about online RPG-ing is that the easiest way to reliably get good players is to be careful about which games you choose to run.

Bolding mine.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Which games have come with the worst Players? Which games had the best Players? What criteria are you using for determining what makes a good Player and a bad Player?

Perhaps it'd be better to say like-minded players. Speaking in aggregates, different games have different player profiles. I find as a general rule that the more obscure game you choose to play, on average you get better players. More obscure games tend to attract people who are more devoted to the hobby, who will be more invested in your campaign and probably more versatile with different campaign styles.

OSR games tend to attract an older crowd, which often means people who are more laid back and low-drama. But conversely I tend to avoid groups that are playing AD&D out of the book, because there's a higher percentage of the more annoying type of grognard that looks down on anyone who isn't a 40 year AD&D veteran and/or gets outraged if you have any criticisms of the game. Expressly sword-and-sorcery games (Conan, Barbarians of Lemuria, etc.) tend to attract people who like pulpy fiction (obviously), which usually means they at least won't be pearl-clutchers. Traveller and Stars Without Number often attract boring people who like to spend their free time calculating shipping rates on their imaginary cargo. Furry games attract furries, anime games attract weaboos; et cetera et cetera.

In the 4-5 years I've been gaming online, I've never once had a woke-related problem with a player, and I attribute that largely to the fact that I don't join/run 5e, Pathfinder, or WOD games. The only time I've had to deal with annoying zoomer players was in a WFRP 4e campaign, which I joined during the height of Warhammer Total War's popularity, so still pretty mainstream at the time.

The method isn't foolproof by any means, but on average I find it a reliable way of saving myself a lot of grief.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 09:48:59 PM

Quote from: jeff37923 on March 03, 2025, 08:56:46 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 04:49:03 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

Quote from: bat on February 24, 2025, 06:35:00 PM

Quote from: ForgottenF on February 24, 2025, 03:56:35 PMIt's a pity the fetishists have tarnished an entire genre by association. I grew up with the Redwall books, and occasionally I consider running something like Hyperborean Mice, but I don't want to do it badly enough to risk either being mistaken for being part of that scene, or having them infiltrate my group.

Do what you want to, don't let those you disagree with coerce you just because they cannot hold a conversation and meet in the middle and insist that they will 'take our hobby away'. Level with people/ I plan on running Mausritter on campus and someone shows up in a mouse costume we are going into a Monty Python skit real fast.

Sadly, I run games for randos on the internet, so I have neither a captive audience nor the ability to easily vette potential players. I'm sure I could do it, but one of the things I've learned about online RPG-ing is that the easiest way to reliably get good players is to be careful about which games you choose to run.

Bolding mine.

Would you mind elaborating on this? Which games have come with the worst Players? Which games had the best Players? What criteria are you using for determining what makes a good Player and a bad Player?

Perhaps it'd be better to say like-minded players. Speaking in aggregates, different games have different player profiles. I find as a general rule that the more obscure game you choose to play, on average you get better players. More obscure games tend to attract people who are more devoted to the hobby, who will be more invested in your campaign and probably more versatile with different campaign styles.

OSR games tend to attract an older crowd, which often means people who are more laid back and low-drama. But conversely I tend to avoid groups that are playing AD&D out of the book, because there's a higher percentage of the more annoying type of grognard that looks down on anyone who isn't a 40 year AD&D veteran and/or gets outraged if you have any criticisms of the game. Expressly sword-and-sorcery games (Conan, Barbarians of Lemuria, etc.) tend to attract people who like pulpy fiction (obviously), which usually means they at least won't be pearl-clutchers. Traveller and Stars Without Number often attract boring people who like to spend their free time calculating shipping rates on their imaginary cargo. Furry games attract furries, anime games attract weaboos; et cetera et cetera.

In the 4-5 years I've been gaming online, I've never once had a woke-related problem with a player, and I attribute that largely to the fact that I don't join/run 5e, Pathfinder, or WOD games. The only time I've had to deal with annoying zoomer players was in a WFRP 4e campaign, which I joined during the height of Warhammer Total War's popularity, so still pretty mainstream at the time.

The method isn't foolproof by any means, but on average I find it a reliable way of saving myself a lot of grief.

Cool. Thank you. I was curious.

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 04:49:03 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3vcnBzPKM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

And I think that sums up where D&D has gone: from fantasy for adults to fantasy for children. Even the X-cards are an attempt to make everything PG.

The thing is, a lot of racial worldbuilding feels arbitrary and not particularly distinct from a possible human culture. When you're dealing with other species, then you have to consider what makes them fundamentally different from humans? What differences are biological and not cultural? Non-humans are going to be wildly different in a way that informs every culture they create, but 99% of the time they're written as a culture that human beings could easily develop. This is true for fantasy and scifi alike. I'm not expecting aliens to be written like the Fair Folk because obviously that isn't conducive to diplomatic relations, but as far as I've found there's nothing between "human in makeup" and "Fair Folk".

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 04, 2025, 09:34:42 AM99% of the time they're written as a culture that human beings could easily develop

Many such cases. Planet of the hats. There are a few ways around it, like making the world universe such that the only way out of the fermi paradox is to be basically human so there's a selection presure towards basically just being humans in hats, but that seems unsatisfing. I like going the lovecraft direction, "these aliens are so different from you I'm not even going to bother trying to explain how, good luck".

My friends pick non-humans if they can get a +1% bonus to combat. There is no other reason.

I was cursed with a very "munchkin" heavy group.

Quote from: Krazz on March 04, 2025, 02:45:50 AM

Quote from: ForgottenF on March 03, 2025, 04:49:03 PM

Quote from: Krazz on March 03, 2025, 03:42:05 PMI thought about this topic after watching a video about Tolkien's views on Narnia. Tolkien tried to make his races have their own cultures and mentalities, as part of an attempt at mature world-building. He didn't like Lewis's approach to Narnia, where talking beavers, fauns and British schoolchildren all have the same culture and mentality.

Could you link that video? I want to take issue with that position, but not on the basis of just a paraphrase.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=FJ3vcnBzPKM

Interesting stuff.

Far be it from me to pick a fight with the ghost of Professor Tolkien, so I'll just say that the guy making the video doesn't appear to have actually read the Narnia books.

In a strictly literal way, the claim being made is incorrect. Narnia does have a culture which is both distinct from the culture of 20th century Britain, and from that of the other fictional nations in the stories (Telmar, Calormen, etc.). There is also a history there, which is hinted at throughout the series and shown in The Magician's Nephew, and there's differentiation within the inhabitants of Narnia. The Black Dwarves are culturally distinct from the Red Dwarves; centaurs are different from werewolves, and so on. Some of the more fantastical creatures like the sea people or the naiads are genuinely quite alien to the protagonists.

That said, I can see why all of that would be insufficient to Tolkien's tastes, especially given the religious objections which that video also mentions. It's definitely true to say that the history of Narnia is a lot less logical and thorough than the history of Middle Earth. I like both quite a bit, but they are very different approaches to fantasy. The plagiarism allegation is an interesting one, which I hadn't heard before, but I'd need to see more than what the video cites.

What I will say is that it's unfair to Narnia to say it's analogous to what's been going on with contemporary D&D. To the extent that there is a samey-ness amongst the fantasy creatures of Narnia, it's largely because Lewis draws very broad generalizations around "good" and "bad"-natured creatures, arguably moreso than Tolkien. That's the opposite of the direction D&D is going in.

Quote from: Zenoguy3 on March 04, 2025, 11:10:42 AM

Quote from: BoxCrayonTales on March 04, 2025, 09:34:42 AM99% of the time they're written as a culture that human beings could easily develop

Many such cases. Planet of the hats. There are a few ways around it, like making the world universe such that the only way out of the fermi paradox is to be basically human so there's a selection presure towards basically just being humans in hats, but that seems unsatisfing. I like going the lovecraft direction, "these aliens are so different from you I'm not even going to bother trying to explain how, good luck".

My preference is towards the Stargate approach. Not literally with Stargates, but that a precursor stage of humanity lost to deep time (say 20k to 14k years ago) expanded out to the stars before everything collapsed so now you've got environmentally adapted humans all over a sphere of inhabited planets within a distance that reinvented hyperdrives or whatever can reach.

14k years is enough time for some degree of evolution to fit planetary environments, but probably not enough to make their thought processes inhuman (probably still be genetically compatible too... like wolves and dogs).

There's two things about the Chronicles of Narnia that needs to be considered to properly critique them.  First, CS Lewis wrote them to be children's books.  Second, the Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical stories where all the fae and the talking animals are supposed to be a way to view regular people through a new lens.

In contrast, Tolkien wrote his Middle Earth books in a much different manner and for a much different purpose.  He intended his audience for almost all of his books to be adults.  He also wanted to explore themes divorced from the personalities that usually provide them and from the conclusions that most tend to push.

Comparing the two, Narnia and Middle Earth, is like comparing a canoe to a passenger jet.  Sure, they are both vehicles but the comparison drops off after that. 

For a more apt comparison of Lewis to Tolkien, I recommend Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.  Here we can see a much more deliberate Lewis writing in pure fiction for a much more sophisticated audience.  More deeply, we can see that Lewis writes to bring the reader to a specific point where the reader observes a specific element in a specific way.  In other words, Lewis is getting to a conclusion and his entire story is to bring you to this moment where you have a deeply poignant understanding of it.  CS Lewis is trying to help you see exactly what he sees so that both the author and the reader are having the exact same experience.  This is deeply in contrast to Tolkien where his goal is to build a narrative playground for your mind to run wild in.  Tolkien isn't trying to guide you to a conclusion, he's trying to build a fire where you find your own experience. 

Quote from: BadApple on March 04, 2025, 05:00:09 PMFor a more apt comparison of Lewis to Tolkien, I recommend Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.  Here we can see a much more deliberate Lewis writing in pure fiction for a much more sophisticated audience.  More deeply, we can see that Lewis writes to bring the reader to a specific point where the reader observes a specific element in a specific way.  In other words, Lewis is getting to a conclusion and his entire story is to bring you to this moment where you have a deeply poignant understanding of it.  CS Lewis is trying to help you see exactly what he sees so that both the author and the reader are having the exact same experience.  This is deeply in contrast to Tolkien where his goal is to build a narrative playground for your mind to run wild in.  Tolkien isn't trying to guide you to a conclusion, he's trying to build a fire where you find your own experience. 

Yep. Then you read "Till We Have Faces"--an essay wrapped in a novel--a sublime novel despite wrapping an essay.  It's the culmination of his career, about the nature of myth.  Another way to make your point is that Lewis is a philosopher first, fantastical writer second, where as Tolkien is a linguist first, fantastical writer second.  However, for all that, Lewis had more than a passing understanding of linguistics, and Tolkien likewise of philosophy.

Quote from: BadApple on March 04, 2025, 05:00:09 PMThere's two things about the Chronicles of Narnia that needs to be considered to properly critique them.  First, CS Lewis wrote them to be children's books.  Second, the Chronicles of Narnia are allegorical stories where all the fae and the talking animals are supposed to be a way to view regular people through a new lens.

In contrast, Tolkien wrote his Middle Earth books in a much different manner and for a much different purpose.  He intended his audience for almost all of his books to be adults.  He also wanted to explore themes divorced from the personalities that usually provide them and from the conclusions that most tend to push.

Comparing the two, Narnia and Middle Earth, is like comparing a canoe to a passenger jet.  Sure, they are both vehicles but the comparison drops off after that. 

For a more apt comparison of Lewis to Tolkien, I recommend Perelandra and Til We Have Faces.  Here we can see a much more deliberate Lewis writing in pure fiction for a much more sophisticated audience.  More deeply, we can see that Lewis writes to bring the reader to a specific point where the reader observes a specific element in a specific way.  In other words, Lewis is getting to a conclusion and his entire story is to bring you to this moment where you have a deeply poignant understanding of it.  CS Lewis is trying to help you see exactly what he sees so that both the author and the reader are having the exact same experience.  This is deeply in contrast to Tolkien where his goal is to build a narrative playground for your mind to run wild in.  Tolkien isn't trying to guide you to a conclusion, he's trying to build a fire where you find your own experience. 

All very true. I really do need to read the space trilogy one of these days.

When it comes to comparing to LOTR to Narnia, I really think you ought to look at them as coming from different literary traditions. Middle Earth is drawn from a background in epic literature and mythology, from Beowulf and the Kalevala, whereas Narnia has more in it of Aesop's Fables and Peter Pan. Lewis does sometimes trip over the line into being hamfisted with his allegories (I can barely sit through The Last Battle), but I do find that as a result Narnia feels much more "fairy-tale" to me. I appreciate the boundless imagination that the looser world-building allows for.

That said, I do think the narrative playground is there in Narnia if you just pay attention to the background details. Lewis makes it clear that Narnia is a persistent world where momentous events often occur entirely without the intervention of English schoolchildren. Calormen and Telmar have histories that are only hinted at in the books. The Kingdom of Narnia fights wars with the giants on its north border and apparently with its human neighbors as well. I've said it before here, but I think Narnia is criminally underrated as a potential roleplaying setting. The fact that its history, cosmology and geography are only vaguely sketched in books just gives you more room to invent as a GM. Set your campaign in Archenland sometime between The Horse and His Boy and Prince Caspian and the world is your oyster.

Quote from: weirdguy564 on March 04, 2025, 01:51:34 PMMy friends pick non-humans if they can get a +1% bonus to combat. There is no other reason.

I was cursed with a very "munchkin" heavy group.

They can make for fantastic playtest groups.

So if I'm roleplaying a green, one eyed alien creature which uses its neck to wrap around things and reads Standard Galactic Alphabet, what stereotypes am I exhibiting?

(https://i.imgur.com/HBm791B.png)

Quote from: D-ko on March 05, 2025, 04:06:24 AMSo if I'm roleplaying a green, one eyed alien creature which uses its neck to wrap around things and reads Standard Galactic Alphabet, what stereotypes am I exhibiting?

(https://i.imgur.com/HBm791B.png)

Hulk's dick?

Quote from: Chris24601 on March 04, 2025, 04:42:45 PMMy preference is towards the Stargate approach. Not literally with Stargates, but that a precursor stage of humanity lost to deep time (say 20k to 14k years ago) expanded out to the stars before everything collapsed so now you've got environmentally adapted humans all over a sphere of inhabited planets within a distance that reinvented hyperdrives or whatever can reach.

14k years is enough time for some degree of evolution to fit planetary environments, but probably not enough to make their thought processes inhuman (probably still be genetically compatible too... like wolves and dogs).

That's another good one. 40k used some thing similar as well, to great effect.