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?" 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.



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


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.

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.