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:

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.

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.



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.

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