What "Race" do you prefer to play?

[Lord Fyre]

And Fantasy Hero page references for those who need them.
Elves FH p. 37
Dwarves FH p. 36
Gnomes FH p. 39
Halflings FH p. 40

Humanoid
Orc FH p. 41
Goblin FH p. 39
Ogre FH p. 41

Faerie
Centaur FH p35
Sprite FH p. 42

Anthropomorphic
Cat Folk FH p. 34
Dragon Folk FH p. 35
Lizard Folk FH p. 40
Serpent Folk FH p. 42
Wolf Folk p. 43

And more importantly, Do you have a reason for your preference?

[Curufea]

Human, followed by my version of Elves - which are similar to the FH version, but immortal.

[Fitz]

Almost invariably human, though I've occasionally played something else. I guess much of the enjoyment I get from roleplaying comes from playing me-but-with-gigantic-muscles, or me-but-with-a-magic-frypan, or me-but-etc.

[Enforcer84]

Gods

[Frenchman]

Gnomes. If not a Gnome, then usually something odd.

[Captain Obvious]

Humans. I liked all the demihuman races in D&D, but when I made the switch to Hero, most of my fantasy characters have been human. I made a dwarf one time, and I think that is the only non human I have made.

And for some strange reason, my computer keeps bringing up some Quick Find window whenever I try to use an apostrophe...

[assault]

Humans. Sometimes they are demi-gods, but they are still basically humans.

[OddHat]

Household appliances. Sometimes furniture.

[Lord Fyre]

And more importantly, Do you have a reason for your preference?

Hmmm . . .

I have a feeling that I would get a very different breakdown on the D&D boards. ;)

Is it because Fantasy Hero is more "balanced" so there is less of a rule incentive to play a non-human?

(I went with Elf, myself.)

[OddHat]

In D&D 3,5, there are strong built in incentives to play a Dwarf, Elf, Halfling, or Gnome. All get very nice bonuses and special abilities at the cost of one feat and a few skill points per level. You only really need a Human if you're planning on a genuinely maxed out skill monster or a character with a very demanding feat tree.

In Hero, ideally you pay for what you get most of the time. Other than different NCM and the occasional framework or bit of campaign fluff, 200 points is always 200 points.

Of course, those bits of fluff can throw things out of "balance" again pretty fast.

[SuperPheemy]

I normally play halfbreeds myself. I empathize with their status as an "outsider". I was heavily inspired by Elric when I was younger, and even though he wasn't a halfbreed, he was always an outsider, not relating to his own people, nor to the humans outside the walls of his city. As to which specific halfbreed, depending on my mood at the time I choose half-elf, or half-orc equally.

[tancred]

Goblin, of course.

What?!? :eg:


Actually, most of the characters I have ever played are human. But my namesake, Tancred the goblin archer, remains one of the most fun characters I have ever played.

[teh bunneh]

I generally like to play humans. Looking back at my fantasy characters over the past 10 years or so, I'd say about 75%+ were humans.

[Hermit]

I tend to prefer human, mostly because they have more variety in background countries and such, in most settings anyway.

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm generally opposed to the idea of FEDH's in fantasy, so I answered humans.

[yamamura]

Generally Elves.......

[SuperPheemy]

I just noticed, I'm the only one who voted "Human Half-Breed"

YAAAAAY! Even in my preferred choices I'm the misunderstood outsider!!!

*Dances victory dance!*:celebrate

[Curufea]

My general reasoning behind Human as first choice is the cultural backgrounds tend to be better developed and more easily understood - therefore I can be lazy when I roleplay by choosing a race requiring little extra work :)

[PhilFleischmann]

Of all the races, I prefer the Kentucky Derby.

I don't know what to pick, human, dwarf, or gnome. Most of my characters *wind up* being human, but I don't necessarily *prefer* them.

The funny thing is, in that other system, the answer would be more obvious due to the more restricted nature of what it means to be each race. HERO has so much freedom and flexibility, it's hard to decide.

Oh, and I'd also like to play a giant, but I never have (except as a GM - which I am more often than a player, so maybe that's why I have a hard time picking).

And one other comes back to me, in the anthropomorphic character that I had a lot of fun with: a baboon-man, but that was a pre-gen character, I didn't make him myself.


I'm generally opposed to the idea of FEDH's in fantasy, so I answered humans.
I'm afraid to ask but, what's a FEDH?

[Enforcer84]

First Edition Doodoo Head.

[teh bunneh]

"Fantasy Elf Dwarf Hobbit."

[Mr_Yuck]

I've played most every race out there.

Humans are the most common and easiest to play (we all are human after all). I tend to go toward the more exotics like the Anthros and such.

In the last few years... (at the risk of sound like a perv or worse), I've found I like to play female characters.

I've always like comic/sci-fi/fantasy women better then their male counterparts!

:sneaky::sneaky::sneaky:

[eternal_sage]

i must say that i voted elf, because thats me in DnD. in HERO fantasy, we rarely have any of these races (well, my wife and i have anthromorphs in the oriental game, because... well you can't have kitsune otherwise). i tend to develop my stuff wholecloth. never been a setting person (other than nWoD and Warlords of the Accordlands, both of which are relatively new to me) perfering homebrew.

and yes, elves, dwarves, and all the rest are really hard to sperate out from the source materials, which is why i go in other directions.

[Zindil]

As Oddhat said "200 points is 200 points." (or 150 points to start with in my campaign) That makes the decision much harder because all the races have fun aspects to me. Overall, I picked human due to my predilection for playing priests. I like humans best for clerics for some reason, although dwarves make fine priests as well.

[kridenow]

Hello,

In Fantasy HERO, I can't answer, I was never a player.
I guess that it would depend a lot of the setting. My choice would be driven by setting incentives.
And by default (so my answer) : humans.
Mostly because they are generally assumed to be the most versatile race, for some reason, whatever the setting, so it would leave me with more freedom to create something that isn't going to contradict blatantly the game world.

Pierre

[Lord Mhoram]

Whatever fits the character concept I am working on - my last 8 or so Fantasy game characters have been

Human
Draconic (1/2 dragon in D&D)
Fey
Giant (or half gaint - in the world, giants only grew to 12 feet tall)
Dwarf
Elf
Half Elf
Human

[Chris Goodwin]

I'm afraid to ask but, what's a FEDH?

It stands for "Elves, Dwarves, Halflings, Et Cetera."

[Vondy]

Humans.

I don't care for high fantasy and won't play it. The reasons are manifold and don't need to be expressed here [so many reasons ,so little time].

It boils down this: high fantasy bores me.

I prefer grittier fantasy genres with rare high fantasy tropes for leaven. Low Fantasy, Swords&Sorcery, Pseudo-Historical Fantasy, and "Noir Sagas"* are my speed.

*a grittier icelandic saga with noir elements.

The occasional spaghetti western trope doesn't kill me, either:

A Fistful of Farthings
For a Few Farthings More
High Plains Huscarl :D

[CrosshairCollie]

Anthropomorphics (which shouldn't surprise anybody).

[Maur]

My preference really depends on the campaign. I've played anthropomorphics when available in campaigns, but mostly stick to the typical Tolkienesque races (humans, dwarves, elves, halflings/hobbits).

[FenrisUlf]

Kinda surprised to see how popular the anthro races are.

[Supreme Serpent]

Almost always humans, be it Fantasy HERO, D&D, space games, what have you. Sometimes a particular concept will lend itself to another race or the concept would be "x race character that...", but default is definitely human.

[MorpheousXO]

I prefer dwarves, but I haven't actually played in many fantasy games (or rather, the ones I did play in lasted a while, so not a lot of characters) so I've only had... 2 dwarves. I've had 4 humans, though the fourth was human just because he was the decendant of the 3nd human, otherwise I probably woulda made a dwarf! Other than that, I had an elf once... oh, and a halfling for like one session... same with a gnome and half-orc (heehee, half-orc monks are cool)

In both WoW and LotRO my first character was a dwarf!

[pinecone]

Hoo-mans...at one time I always went for the most exotic thing avaialable....nowadays I go for making "Joe Normal" interesting....

[Dust Raven]

Humans.

Why? Because nobody else does and they are supposed to be the dominant race in just about every fantasy setting. Apparently I don't play with enough people like those on the Hero Boards...

[Supreme Serpent]

Two more reasons I normally go human:

1) I find it can be rare for the player's concept of the race's culture, etc. and the GM's concept to be in synch. One person wants the elves to be Tolkeinesque, one wants them to be Sidhe, another wants them to be anime bishonen, etc.

2) I find the non-humans tend to go more stereotypical (with whatever view is taken).

In my latest fantasy campaign I just made humans the only available PC race - no dwarves, elves, etc. exist. Just about anything someone would want out of a 'demihuman' personality they should be able to get out of an appropriately done human.

[Lord Fyre]

In my latest fantasy campaign I just made humans the only available PC race - no dwarves, elves, etc. exist. Just about anything someone would want out of a 'demihuman' personality they should be able to get out of an appropriately done human.

Absolutely! Are not all "demi-humans" really variations of humanity anyway. :thumbup:

There are a couple of reasons that I don't think not having non-humans will be a problem though.

1) Players want them! Players in a fantasy campaign expect to have the opiton to play Elves, Dwarves, etc. They will often be unhappy if they cannot. :(

2) The other reason is that modern players do not think and react to "strangers" the same way that people in a pre-industral society do. A
Roman upon encountering an Australian Aborigine, would not see another person, but a "monster" of unknown abiliites and intent. :straight: (This is part of what lead to so much abuse during the European Colonial period.)

2b) Counterwise, most players don't get how diverse humanity really was (modern communications have homoginized human culture somewhat). Circa 1000 AD, An English Knight, A Japanese Samual, and a Zulu warror were so different as to be effectively from another world. Indeed most Elves, Dwarves, Gnomes, etc. are not nearly so different in culture/environment/technology. :eek:

[Kristopher]

Humans.

Why? Because nobody else does and they are supposed to be the dominant race in just about every fantasy setting. Apparently I don't play with enough people like those on the Hero Boards...

Here, we're working on a setting where that's not the case.

[Markdoc]

In my latest fantasy campaign I just made humans the only available PC race - no dwarves, elves, etc. exist. Just about anything someone would want out of a 'demihuman' personality they should be able to get out of an appropriately done human.

Yep, I do this too.

As for preferred race, it's humans more than anything, though I also have a liking for races with useful attributes. So, I played a troll in Runequest because they're big and strong, which makes for lethal fighters in that game (though my other two characters in that campaign were both human) and a half-troll in a play by email FH game because hey! regeneration! (just can't beat regeneration and a decent DEF in a FH game - if you survive a fight you're ready to go again in a couple of minutes) and an aasimar in my current D20 game because I wanted to play a fast scout-type, so darkvision was a must and dwarves have little stumpy legs. :D

cheers., Mark

[Remjin]

I chose human for a lot of reasons, including many already mentioned. Too many players substitute race for interesting characters, choosing exoticism as their only interesting point.

From my days playing D&D, I got quite tired of Tiefling/Dragon(-blooded) Vampiric Lycanthropes and et al. Part of it stems from that. I always thought elves, dwarves, and the rest to be incredibly one-dimensional in their presentations and thus boring.

I'm also a fan of low fantasy/Swords and Sorcery type of games as well. I far prefer to build an interesting character by personality rather than birth happenstance.

That being said, I do have a soft spot for Orks from my days of being a Warhammer(40k) player.

[Meadyaon]

I choose Humanoid. I have play humans before though. I wpuld play orcs for the most part over other humanoids and demi-humans so long as they do not have green skin and pig features. In FH I make my orcs more more in line with the way Tolkien's Uruk-hai look like. I like the orc, goblin-men and Uruk-hai in the LOTR more then I did the humans, elves, hobbits, and, dwarves. If I could not play an orc I would choose a dwarf or convert the Wretch (ugly hag/orc cross) from Bastards and Bloodlines (d20 product for 3rd D&D) to FH.

[Enforcer84]

Foot. Occasaionally "The Amazing." Almost never the Rat.

[dmjalund]

note the 4 year thread necromancy

[CrosshairCollie]

Foot. Occasaionally "The Amazing." Almost never the Rat.

How about Bannon?

[Tasha]

I prefer playing Halflings, I kind of like the 3e D&D version of them being Somewhat Gypsy like.
Gnomes come in second (I like the Mad Scientist Gnomes more than the Dwarf-lite and Faerie gnomes), Goblins can be fun depending on the background. Dwarves can be fun when I am in the right mood.

I really like Fantasy backgrounds where the Bad Guy humanoids aren't irredeemable always going to be evil cardboard cutout targets. I prefer settings where ie Orcs are brutal, barbaric humanoids as a whole. but aren't baby eating, devil worshipping idiots. They still raid others to survive and to prove their prowess, but are more like viking/ Visigoth/ barbarians. I don't mind that they might hate races who look down on them or they are jealous of, or who have wronged them in the past. I just hate the old school video game feeling badguys.

I also hate that Dark Elves are Black Skinned Red eyed monsters. That feels so racist to me. Too "Afraid of the non whites" for my confort. Also, it doesn't make any real sense for a subterranean race to be dark skinned. Most species that live underground grow lighter skinned due to lack of sun hitting the skin, and the resultant lack of melanin needed to prevent skin burns.

I guess I am a bit Namby pamby Politically correct in my thinking.

[Ranxerox]

In the most recent fantasy game that I participated in my character was a goblin shaman. One of my first and favorite characters was a half-orc. In between that early game and the more recent one, I have GMed a lot more than I have been a player. Still, if I am playing at a convention and humanoid character get put on the table, I will grab him quick.

[Michael Hopcroft]

I also hate that Dark Elves are Black Skinned Red eyed monsters. That feels so racist to me. Too "Afraid of the non whites" for my confort. Also, it doesn't make any real sense for a subterranean race to be dark skinned. Most species that live underground grow lighter skinned due to lack of sun hitting the skin, and the resultant lack of melanin needed to prevent skin burns.

I guess I am a bit Namby pamby Politically correct in my thinking.

I took a lot of flak when I proposed "Dark Men" as a theoretical construct for a fantasy campaign. I described them as humans who had thoroughly embraced evil on an elemental level, but look no different than the general run of humanity. More of a cult than a subspecies. It makes little seise to me that Drow don't look like other elves very much or, alternatively, don't have very little kinship to Elves at all.

Much of the literature on which fantasy gaming is based comes from a period where open racism was close to a societal norm. Even the term "Races" conjures up images to segregation and obsessions with purity that (hopefully) make no sense to most modern people. Race itself is almost a nonsense construct: despite superficial appearances there is little to no fundamental differences among the human species. Culture differs dramatically, but humanity remains humanity regardless of skin color or other superficial features, which make an individual no more good or evil than any other individual in the general run of mankind. As Dr. King put it so eloquently, judge me by the content of my character, not by my appearance.

So race in a fantasy campaign means something different -- for which it is probably unhelpful to continue to use the word "race" to describe it. In a world where magic exists, there is no reason to believe that cultural distinctions cannot have physical effects. The Elven culture might have an affinity with the force of magic that gives them their unnaturally long lifespans. Dwarven affinity for good, solid stone might affect them as well. Since in the D&D setting, and many others, all these groups can interbreed at will it implies that they are all essentially one species -- just with many, many variations.

[tkdguy]

The Dark Elves in the Shadow World setting look more like the High Elves, although many have a streak of white in their hair.

[Tasha]

In the most recent fantasy game that I participated in my character was a goblin shaman. One of my first and favorite characters was a half-orc. In between that early game and the more recent one, I have GMed a lot more than I have been a player. Still, if I am playing at a convention and humanoid character get put on the table, I will grab him quick.

Your Goblin Shaman rocked. He was quite enjoyable to run adventures for.

[Tasha]

I took a lot of flak when I proposed "Dark Men" as a theoretical construct for a fantasy campaign. I described them as humans who had thoroughly embraced evil on an elemental level, but look no different than the general run of humanity. More of a cult than a subspecies. It makes little seise to me that Drow don't look like other elves very much or, alternatively, don't have very little kinship to Elves at all.

Much of the literature on which fantasy gaming is based comes from a period where open racism was close to a societal norm. Even the term "Races" conjures up images to segregation and obsessions with purity that (hopefully) make no sense to most modern people. Race itself is almost a nonsense construct: despite superficial appearances there is little to no fundamental differences among the human species. Culture differs dramatically, but humanity remains humanity regardless of skin color or other superficial features, which make an individual no more good or evil than any other individual in the general run of mankind. As Dr. King put it so eloquently, judge me by the content of my character, not by my appearance.

So race in a fantasy campaign means something different -- for which it is probably unhelpful to continue to use the word "race" to describe it. In a world where magic exists, there is no reason to believe that cultural distinctions cannot have physical effects. The Elven culture might have an affinity with the force of magic that gives them their unnaturally long lifespans. Dwarven affinity for good, solid stone might affect them as well. Since in the D&D setting, and many others, all these groups can interbreed at will it implies that they are all essentially one species -- just with many, many variations.

Your "Dark Men" resemble Dragonlances "Dark Elves". In Dragonlance (ie Krynn), Dark elves are simply elves that have fallen to evil and worshipping dark powers.

Instead of Races, I prefer to refer to Humanoids as different Species (because that's what they are). Though the Term "Race" is very ingrained into Gamer Culture.

I think that the Fantasy Races are different Species, perhaps with Humans, Orcs and Elves being the same genius. (Half Dwarves, Half Gnomes, etc are pretty rare and seem to only be things that players come up with. Which leads me to believe that they don't happen) I prefer to think that Half elves and Half Orcs are actually fairly rare as opposed to being easy to create. It is possible for different species to create offspring, just the offspring tends to be infertile. It's really hard to tell what role magic and active deities have in the creation of half breeds. It does appear that Half Elves and Half Orcs are fertile, esp seeing that Communities of Half elves do exist that give birth to other Half Elves.

[Vondy]

I prefer playing Halflings, I kind of like the 3e D&D version of them being Somewhat Gypsy like.
Gnomes come in second (I like the Mad Scientist Gnomes more than the Dwarf-lite and Faerie gnomes),

If I had to play a non-human these would be my first choices. I also liked pre-Drizzt Drow, but they weren't really intended to be a playable PC species at that point.

[Vondy]

Though the Term "Race" is very ingrained into Gamer Culture...

And allows for the strange assumption that everything can breed with everything! I agree 'species' is the better term and should be used, but then, different species usually can't successfully mate successfully the way different 'races' can. At least, not without magic or an entirely different set of rules governing genetics and reproductive biology in play. But its fantasy, so that's not entirely implausible. I kind of like the idea that hybirds only happen when magic is used. It makes them unique.

[Vondy]

Part of it stems from that. I always thought elves, dwarves, and the rest to be incredibly one-dimensional in their presentations and thus boring.

This, too, is one of my issues. Most 'demi-human' species have monolithic human-culture knockoffs. And those knockoffs usually come across like caricatures rather than full-fledged societies. Not always, but its the norm. At that point, why bother? (other than species with cool-factor powers).

[dmjalund]

how about sub-species. Indicates a real divergence, but leavs the possibility of cross-breeding.

[Lucius]

In a world where magic exists, there is no reason to believe that cultural distinctions cannot have physical effects..

Now that's an idea worth considering.

Lucius Alexander

so the difference between a palindromedary and a backandforthtrian would be....

[CrosshairCollie]

(other than species with cool-factor powers).

Which is a perfectly valid reason to play a character. So is 'I like the stereotype', 'I want to subvert the stereotype', 'I rolled randomly' or 'I think they look cool' or any other reason a player has for playing his character.

[Vondy]

Which is a perfectly valid reason to play a character. So is 'I like the stereotype', 'I want to subvert the stereotype', 'I rolled randomly' or 'I think they look cool' or any other reason a player has for playing his character.

I agree with the first reason. I consider the second a cop-out. But hey, to each their own.

[CrosshairCollie]

But hey, to each their own.

Exactly. Different people play RPGs for different reasons.

[Ranxerox]

Your Goblin Shaman rocked. He was quite enjoyable to run adventures for.

Thanks :) I've had Swampfoot the Goblin in the back of my mind for over a decade, and I was tickled pink to finally get to play him. I'm just sorry that I didn't get to run him longer.

[Alcamtar]

There are a couple of reasons that I don't think not having non-humans will be a problem though.
Wow. A triple negative in all its glorious incomprehensibility! :nonp::thumbup:

[Lucius]

Wow. A triple negative in all its glorious incomprehensibility! :nonp::thumbup:

He is saying that he expects a campaign of only Humans could be free of problems.

What I don't know is if that means "Only Humans as player characters" or "Only Humans as 'people' that is, only Humans have language, tools, and culture."

Lucius Alexander

Is a palindromedary a person?

[Remjin]

This, too, is one of my issues. Most 'demi-human' species have monolithic human-culture knockoffs. And those knockoffs usually come across like caricatures rather than full-fledged societies. Not always, but its the norm. At that point, why bother? (other than species with cool-factor powers).
Well, someone else mentioned here about liking the idea of species and presenting the various types as full fledged societies and the like. When "dwarves" become more than grumpy little fat guys with big beards and have a complete culture all their own, then I find them interesting. Visually, I find various races to be interesting and have done things in the past to try and expand on them more and give them some more character and variance. Some games have gone a long way in making other races more interesting and less a tiny little stereotype, which makes them more viable for me. That, along with a plethora of people expanding upon and making variations on the classic types has made things much more interesting.

[CrosshairCollie]

Well, someone else mentioned here about liking the idea of species and presenting the various types as full fledged societies and the like. When "dwarves" become more than grumpy little fat guys with big beards and have a complete culture all their own, then I find them interesting. Visually, I find various races to be interesting and have done things in the past to try and expand on them more and give them some more character and variance. Some games have gone a long way in making other races more interesting and less a tiny little stereotype, which makes them more viable for me. That, along with a plethora of people expanding upon and making variations on the classic types has made things much more interesting.

I do it a slightly different way; I design nations with cultures, and whatever beings live there, regardless of race, tend to follow along those culture lines (with variance, of course). So, for instance, to create random nonsense names, a dwarf from Morland will have more in common with, and get along better with, an elf from Morland than a dwarf from Bearlia. I've never been a fan of 'Dwarfland' and 'Elfland' as countries.

[Manic Typist]

But what about cultural identities that cross national boundaries?

[CrosshairCollie]

But what about cultural identities that cross national boundaries?

I don't think I really understand the question.

[Lucius]

I don't think I really understand the question.

To pull a couple of examples:

Amal is a second generation American citizen who has never been to the Old Country his parents came from. But he grew up hearing Arabic and speaks it pretty fluently, is an observant Muslim, learned to cook traditional Egyptian dishes because he missed mom's cooking so much after he moved out, and in the wake of recent events in the Old Country has made a lot of online friends from there. He is also talking to recruiters for the armed services out of a sense that America has been very good to his family and he wants to give something back. Critical of what he sees as the immorality of some aspects of American pop culture, he also staunchly defends the principle of an open society in which people are free to accept or reject ideas according to their conscience.

Juan is a third generation Mexican American who doesn't speak Spanish very well but enthusiastically participates in cultural celebrations such as Cinqo de Mayo and the Day of the Dead, is kind of a fanatic about "authentic" Mexican cuisine, and attends mass frequently in a neighborhood parish with a mostly Hispanic congregation. He's been to Mexico several times visiting relatives but has no desire to ever leave the US permanently, but is talking to recruiters because he'd like a chance to "see the world" before finding a nice Mexican girl and settling down.

Juan and Amal met at a recruiter's office actually, then ran into each other at a comic shop. Amal introduced Juan to Champions and Juan introduced Amal to Warhammer, and now they show up together at the friendly local game store so often people joke that if you've seen Juan, you've seen Amal. When they're not gaming together it seems they're always talking about classic rock from the sixties and seventies or complaining about what movies based on comic books get wrong.

Then there's the guy who runs their Champions game, Isaac, who is studying to be a rabbi....

Lucius Alexander

Then there's this guy with a palindromedary.....

[CrosshairCollie]

That'd just be the PC deciding his character has some admiration for another culture, taking CK: (whatever country) and the language of the other country and stuff like that, if it needs any mechanical representation at all.

[Vondy]

I don't think I really understand the question.

I think it would be better stated as "national (cultural) identities" that are not limited by "country." A country is a specific geographical area. It is often, but not always under one sovereign entity (state). It may include many nationalities (cultural/tribal groups) in its borders. You could have members of one nation residing in the country of another. They may be fully assimilated, but on the other hand, they may form a sub-culture or enclave that remains distinct, even if it has absorbed some of the broader culture.

Some examples: the trestavere in ancient rome was packed with "easterners." Syrians, Greeks, Jews, some Persians. Many of them, especially under the empire became roman citizens. BUT they were only Romanized so-far. They still often maintained distinctive clothes, dialects, customs, and burial practices. This was true on a broader scale when one looks at the roman provinces, which had their own unique characters despite being "romanized." Another example would be the assorted Muslim nations and ottoman empire, the latter of which formalized cultural sub-groups using the millet system in which each cultural group was its own estate.

This wasn't unique to Islam. Christian kingdoms on Europe did this too. In most Christian kingdoms Jews were not only "slaves of the crown," but also a separate estate often only allowed to live in specific regions or neighborhoods. Ergo, the ghettos in the cities or the pale in Tzarist Russia. In pre-expulsion spain (1492), and in Lithuania and Poland into the 18th century, this was taken to such an extreme that Jews formed a micro-state with their own criminal and civil courts. This wasn't just the Jews. It was also true of assorted pagan tribes that survived into the 14th and 15th centuries of Christian Europe (esp. in southeastern Europe).

More modern: Hassidic Jews in New York (or any other ethnic neighborhood especially in the first half of the 20th century), or Islamists in Detroit, or the Barrio in Miami, or any Spanish speaking enclaves (and sometimes whole towns) along the Rio Grande or in SoCal, or sections of London dominated by people from Jamaica or Central Asia? They've rebuilt an adjusted version of their nation's culture in another nation's country. Their success, and desire, to fully assimilate will vary.

I guess, to make it short, the culturally unified modern super-state has been made possible by advances in transportation, communication, and information technology that are just that - modern. Prior the the age of reason and industrial revolution the assimilation of immigrant groups was slower and often far from complete. Of course, at this point, the Internet and international flights has made immigration - and maintaining connections to your birth culture (and language) - that much easier.

[CrosshairCollie]

Well, as far as that goes, I don't particularly feel a compulsion to make my game worlds that realistic. The presence of magic and monsters and alternate sapient species renders the whole 'Faux European Dark Ages Replica' thing moot. I don't feel any particular urge to cleave to that concept. Heck, I bristle every time one of my players uses the phrase 'back then' in reference to a fantasy game. It's not the real world, it was never the real world, and whatever might or might not have occured in real world history is utterly irrelevant to what happens in my fantasy games.

And, really, my fantasy games do incorporate a lot of 'modern' lines of thought, particularly when it comes to tolerance just because I find racism, sexism and the like so utterly abhorrent that I would not consider running a game world in which it's an acceptable behavior.

[Michael Hopcroft]

To pull a couple of examples:

Amal is a second generation American citizen who has never been to the Old Country his parents came from. But he grew up hearing Arabic and speaks it pretty fluently, is an observant Muslim, learned to cook traditional Egyptian dishes because he missed mom's cooking so much after he moved out, and in the wake of recent events in the Old Country has made a lot of online friends from there. He is also talking to recruiters for the armed services out of a sense that America has been very good to his family and he wants to give something back. Critical of what he sees as the immorality of some aspects of American pop culture, he also staunchly defends the principle of an open society in which people are free to accept or reject ideas according to their conscience.

Juan is a third generation Mexican American who doesn't speak Spanish very well but enthusiastically participates in cultural celebrations such as Cinqo de Mayo and the Day of the Dead, is kind of a fanatic about "authentic" Mexican cuisine, and attends mass frequently in a neighborhood parish with a mostly Hispanic congregation. He's been to Mexico several times visiting relatives but has no desire to ever leave the US permanently, but is talking to recruiters because he'd like a chance to "see the world" before finding a nice Mexican girl and settling down.

Juan and Amal met at a recruiter's office actually, then ran into each other at a comic shop. Amal introduced Juan to Champions and Juan introduced Amal to Warhammer, and now they show up together at the friendly local game store so often people joke that if you've seen Juan, you've seen Amal. When they're not gaming together it seems they're always talking about classic rock from the sixties and seventies or complaining about what movies based on comic books get wrong.

Then there's the guy who runs their Champions game, Isaac, who is studying to be a rabbi....

That is one of the chief reasons I love America so much. I never considered the "melting pot" a good analogy for immigration and what happens to immigrants. Immigrants retain ties to their old homeland's cultures, yet become no less American for it. American culture is more like a good stew, which becomes richer and more flavorful the more ingredients you add, than a melting pot that makes everyone homogeneous.

I know a lot of people just don't get it and believe that a single culture would make America stronger. I take the completely opposite view: that diverse people from all over the world make themselves part of America strengthens America immeasurably.

Most fantasy cities in a logical world with many cultures would be cosmopolitan much like an American city like NYC or LA. This would be especially true of capitals, trade hubs and cultural centers -- and of cities with all three functions.

[Lucius]

Another good example would be the Romani, or Gypsy, people.

While they have historically always assimilated to some degree (at least by, for example, learning the languages of the people they travel among and interact with) they, along with the Jews, provide a major example in the West of a "people" (self identified cultural and linguistic group) with their own identity and customs who "cross national boundaries" as Manic Typist put it.

If we assume that beings such as Elves and Dwarves either cannot breed with Humans or would usually choose not to, it seems likely that if, like the Romani, they lack a homeland (an "Elfland" or "Dwarfland") then even if they are sedentary (like most Jewish communities) rather than migrant (like most Rom communities) they would constitute a distinct cultural identity. That is, even if a Dwarf from Morland would logically have a lot in common with an Elf from Morland, he would ALSO probably have a lot in common with a Dwarf from Bearlia that he would not necessarily share with other Morlanders.

And at what point did mechanics enter into it?

Lucius Alexander

What does a palindromedary have in common with a muskrat living in France?

[Lucius]

Well, as far as that goes, I don't particularly feel a compulsion to make my game worlds that realistic. The presence of magic and monsters and alternate sapient species renders the whole 'Faux European Dark Ages Replica' thing moot. I don't feel any particular urge to cleave to that concept. Heck, I bristle every time one of my players uses the phrase 'back then' in reference to a fantasy game. It's not the real world, it was never the real world, and whatever might or might not have occured in real world history is utterly irrelevant to what happens in my fantasy games.


While I won't go so far as saying "utterly irrelevant" I too have something of a pet peeve about talking about fantasy as if it's actual past history.

As far as the current topic goes, however, we're not even just talking about history. I don't think. I think I may have lost track. What ARE we talking about right now anyway?

edit: Looking back, this post


I do it a slightly different way; I design nations with cultures, and whatever beings live there, regardless of race, tend to follow along those culture lines (with variance, of course).

makes me suspect we all probably agree in fundamentals.


Lucius Alexander

Probably not palindromedaries

[Remjin]

I do it a slightly different way; I design nations with cultures, and whatever beings live there, regardless of race, tend to follow along those culture lines (with variance, of course). So, for instance, to create random nonsense names, a dwarf from Morland will have more in common with, and get along better with, an elf from Morland than a dwarf from Bearlia. I've never been a fan of 'Dwarfland' and 'Elfland' as countries.


Well, as far as that goes, I don't particularly feel a compulsion to make my game worlds that realistic. The presence of magic and monsters and alternate sapient species renders the whole 'Faux European Dark Ages Replica' thing moot. I don't feel any particular urge to cleave to that concept. Heck, I bristle every time one of my players uses the phrase 'back then' in reference to a fantasy game. It's not the real world, it was never the real world, and whatever might or might not have occured in real world history is utterly irrelevant to what happens in my fantasy games.

And, really, my fantasy games do incorporate a lot of 'modern' lines of thought, particularly when it comes to tolerance just because I find racism, sexism and the like so utterly abhorrent that I would not consider running a game world in which it's an acceptable behavior.
I would say this sort of thing is probably the gist of what I'm getting at as far as cultures, races, etc.

I think a little realism versus base caricature of a subject matter can be good, but too much just makes it no fun.

I embrace the idea of women being treated more equally in a game... but mostly because I find the idea of competent women wielding weapons, magic, or whatever to be dead sexy... so I guess I'm kind of an anti-sexist sexist or something...

In any case, the whole thread started with racial preferences for your games but has expanded into a sort of diatribe on representations of the races and cultures in games... its still interesting and at least somewhat related to the original post. =)

[Vondy]

While I won't go so far as saying "utterly irrelevant" I too have something of a pet peeve about talking about fantasy as if it's actual past history.

It can certainly be taken too far. There is a difference between "sword and sandal" and "sword and sorcery." Indeed, this is my big pet peeve with the harnforum community - insisting Harn be treated as a hyper-realistic, excessively low-fantasy medieval simulation [1]. I admit I like low fantasy, or rather fantasy where the fantastic elements are kept rare enough, or low-key enough, to keep them fantastic rather than so common and open as to render them ordinary. But it still has to be fantasy. At the same time, I like my fantasy worlds to have sufficient verisimilitude to carry me into it. I expect some things to be different and for the world-builder to have innovated a good deal. But ignoring history and having modern social norms is, for me, just as much a mood killer as insisting the fantasy world come out like a facsimile of the mud, famine, plague, and caste/class driven historical pasts we rob blind to generate our fantasy milieus in the first place.

[1] They are a very nice and informed group of folks for the most part. I don't write harn-fanon, however, because there is little tolerance for stylistic variances. If you write a noir plot, or spaghetti western plot, both of which are eminently doable as fantasy, you have to twist the aesthetic a bit. And that will get you eaten alive for not being period (medieval) enough. So, I don't....

[Manic Typist]

Some excellent examples by Lucius and Vondy. I'll add that you can see this sort of thing with the Hmong or Somali communities in the Twin Cities, or most any Chinatown anywhere in the world. I encourage people to rep them, since they so immediately and so eloquently grasped and then elaborated upon my point.


Heck, I bristle every time one of my players uses the phrase 'back then' in reference to a fantasy game. It's not the real world, it was never the real world, and whatever might or might not have occured in real world history is utterly irrelevant to what happens in my fantasy games.

I feel your pain. Someone on these boards once explained that I needed to change my homebrew explanation for the magical process by which orcs are produced....because if I didn't I would end up with problems with the law of diminishing returns. *facepalm*

[Orion]

I embrace the idea of women being treated more equally in a game... but mostly because I find the idea of competent women wielding weapons, magic, or whatever to be dead sexy... so I guess I'm kind of an anti-sexist sexist or something...

I'm just the opposite - I find the idea to be generally silly and somewhat off-putting. In my primary fantasy campaign, warrior women are exceedingly rare, and the players handout says that if one is chosen, they will have to deal with prejudice and bigotry. Being a mage carries less issues, but women are expected to stay at home and raise kids. The cultures owes a lot to Saxon and early Norman cultures, and I try to play true to that. I'm not interested in equality or modern perceptions - I'm emulating a genre and period of history. If we do Traveller or Champions, then equality is expected, but not historical fantasy.

[dmjalund]

but there are very few truly Historical fantasies out there

[Orion]

I know a lot of people just don't get it and believe that a single culture would make America stronger. I take the completely opposite view: that diverse people from all over the world make themselves part of America strengthens America immeasurably.

Color me as not getting it, or perhaps the words mean something different to me. I think we have a single culture as a country, and this is a prime reason we are so strong. At one time I think we were a melting pot. People came here, assimilated, and many cultures became one. If it still worked this way, I might agree with you, but I don't think it has for a long time.

In my area at least, it is not a melting pot. There is no assimilation, and if anything, people are trying much harder to retain their old culture and not let anything of the new change them. Before, we were a big stew or perhaps a buffet table. Now it's many different menus, and mixing ingredients or dishes is not allowed.

[Kraven Kor]

When I was younger, I always played Half-Elves or Half-Orcs, depending on the class I wanted to play (I won't include those games where we used the 3d6 in order method and had to pick class based on those rolls rather than what you wanted to play.)

My first Fantasy Novels were the Dragonlance Chronicles series... had tried reading Tolkien when I was about 8 or 9 but wasn't ready for it. At 11, the Dragonlance books were phenomenal, and Tanis was my inspiration for most of my characters.

Once I got to the point where we were mostly "roll" playing / power gaming, my preference didn't sway much - either elf (for mages), half-elf (rangers or rogues), or half-orc (for fighter types.)

Then 3.x came out and humans actually got a somewhat useful bonus, and I switched to human since nobody ever played humans in my group.

I hadn't ever played Fantasy HERO prior to this, had only been GM. And to this day, I've only played in one campaign as a player, and it was very short lived. So I don't know what my FH preference would be. Probably human, unless with a group who all tended to play humans and thus would need a non-human.

[Vondy]

I'm just the opposite - I find the idea to be generally silly and somewhat off-putting. In my primary fantasy campaign, warrior women are exceedingly rare, and the players handout says that if one is chosen, they will have to deal with prejudice and bigotry. Being a mage carries less issues, but women are expected to stay at home and raise kids. The cultures owes a lot to Saxon and early Norman cultures, and I try to play true to that. I'm not interested in equality or modern perceptions - I'm emulating a genre and period of history. If we do Traveller or Champions, then equality is expected, but not historical fantasy.

A big part of it is do you want happy women at the gaming table? If there are no women at your gaming table its a moot point. Drive home that realism! But if there are, you may have to liberate their a little bit and avoid punishing them for not playing a barefoot, pregnant, over-the-stewpot goodwife.

[Kraven Kor]

Yeah. Just because we used to treat women like property in "real history" doesn't mean our fantasy cultures must conform to that. Nor does it mean you must be politically correct or else and avoid having any or all of your cultures be as barbaric and backwards as you want (or as we used to be / sometimes still are.)

My campaign has the main "starting kingdom" - Noordmar - as being fairly egalitarian and culturally advanced - women, for the most part, still play the same gender roles as they tend to in modern America, but have every freedom and right and such that men have. They can have jobs, hold office, file for divorce, vote (if a landholder), etc.

Then I have other civilizations that are not so advanced; Ulohi has women treated as not much more than cattle and rampant slavery and even daily virgin sacrifices. Obviously, a female player could not exactly fair well in a campaign set here, but it makes for a great evil empire for the players to rally against ;)

Other cultures lie somewhere between those two.

[Orion]

A big part of it is do you want happy women at the gaming table? If there are no women at your gaming table its a moot point. Drive home that realism! But if there are, you may have to liberate their a little bit and avoid punishing them for not playing a barefoot, pregnant, over-the-stewpot goodwife.

What are these gaming women you speak of? :confused: I have met exactly one female role-player in my life, and as far as I know, she only did super hero. The only other female gamer I've met is strictly a D&D hack/slash fan. She's actually played a warrior in my campaign, but only because she (and all other players at that time) told me ahead of time that they had zero interest in campaign or character background, and so I ditched all that and ran Fantasy Hero dungeon crawls for them. I know that there are women and girls that roleplay, but I have only ever met two in person. And since most of my life I was a player and not GM, and my GMs really didn't care at all about the campaign world, I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that was keeping them away.

As a GM, I find it easy enough to say to any new players "This is my world. Here are the rules. I can GM in this one, or we can come up with something different, but that is guaranteed to have less detail and work put into it." If they want something different, that is okay with me. I would assume anyone wanting to play in a low (or no) magic historic simulation would be buying into the genre assumptions, or else they wouldn't be asking for that type of campaign to start with.

[Kraven Kor]

What are these gaming women you speak of? :confused: I have met exactly one female role-player in my life, and as far as I know, she only did super hero. The only other female gamer I've met is strictly a D&D hack/slash fan. She's actually played a warrior in my campaign, but only because she (and all other players at that time) told me ahead of time that they had zero interest in campaign or character background, and so I ditched all that and ran Fantasy Hero dungeon crawls for them. I know that there are women and girls that roleplay, but I have only ever met two in person. And since most of my life I was a player and not GM, and my GMs really didn't care at all about the campaign world, I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that was keeping them away.

As a GM, I find it easy enough to say to any new players "This is my world. Here are the rules. I can GM in this one, or we can come up with something different, but that is guaranteed to have less detail and work put into it." If they want something different, that is okay with me. I would assume anyone wanting to play in a low (or no) magic historic simulation would be buying into the genre assumptions, or else they wouldn't be asking for that type of campaign to start with.

I have had at least one female at most of my gaming tables for about the last 15 years. Certainly when I was a teenager, "girls didn't play games." But I now know this to be not wholly true.

[Vondy]

What are these gaming women you speak of? :confused: I have met exactly one female role-player in my life, and as far as I know, she only did super hero. The only other female gamer I've met is strictly a D&D hack/slash fan. She's actually played a warrior in my campaign, but only because she (and all other players at that time) told me ahead of time that they had zero interest in campaign or character background, and so I ditched all that and ran Fantasy Hero dungeon crawls for them. I know that there are women and girls that roleplay, but I have only ever met two in person. And since most of my life I was a player and not GM, and my GMs really didn't care at all about the campaign world, I'm pretty sure it wasn't me that was keeping them away.

As a GM, I find it easy enough to say to any new players "This is my world. Here are the rules. I can GM in this one, or we can come up with something different, but that is guaranteed to have less detail and work put into it." If they want something different, that is okay with me. I would assume anyone wanting to play in a low (or no) magic historic simulation would be buying into the genre assumptions, or else they wouldn't be asking for that type of campaign to start with.

I gamed from 7-15 without girls. But in high school one of the cheer leaders (our valedictorian), who was one of my "art room buddies," saw some character art, asked about it, made a curious little sound without saying anything, and then showed up at my house after school saying she wanted to look at my gaming books. She absconded with my old AD&D PH and then, after a few weeks, started attending our Saturday afternoon game 2-3 times a month.

When I was in university I had two groups I played with. One was 2 men and 3 women: one of the guys from my high school group, his girlfriend, my fiancee, and her older (divorced) sister. In fact, since the other man in the group and I alternated running adventures/arcs the player ratio in any given adventure was generally 3:1 female:male! It ran different, based on player interest, than any other game I've been in. That one lasted until we graduated, he married, and I called it off with my fiancee all at once.

The other was the "group from hell" I've discussed elsewhere, which had one female gamer (out of seven!). When that group finally disintegrated I ended up starting my first real Hero group, which lasted over a decade and had a relatively stable all male bedrock for years on end. Women? Not many. And not often.

Today I run an online game for one of the guys from that long-time group, and a solo game at home... for my wife. Which is interesting since she 1) didn't game for the first time until a few years ago, and 2) has never played with a group. She comes at it from radically different angles than most gamers, including women, I've ever played with. She doesn't even really know how her character is built. She has a heavily redacted numbers light sheet with target numbers and THAT's it. She's more concerned interacting with a story than anything. And fantasy isn't her genre.

Overall, most of the gamers I've played with have been male, and most of the groups that had women were overwhelmingly male.

[megaplayboy]

I prefer playing humans in most fantasy games, though one of my favorite characters is a "high kobold" who was found on a battlefield and adopted by a childless human noble couple. The family fortune consists of a farm where they grow "snuff" and cocoa beans. He trained with the finest fencing instructors, wields a masterwork fencing saber, and rides the equivalent of a thoroughbred race horse. He wears fancy clothing and tends to fight in a swashbuckling style, complete with witty/pithy commentary.

[Tasha]

Color me as not getting it, or perhaps the words mean something different to me. I think we have a single culture as a country, and this is a prime reason we are so strong. At one time I think we were a melting pot. People came here, assimilated, and many cultures became one. If it still worked this way, I might agree with you, but I don't think it has for a long time.

In my area at least, it is not a melting pot. There is no assimilation, and if anything, people are trying much harder to retain their old culture and not let anything of the new change them. Before, we were a big stew or perhaps a buffet table. Now it's many different menus, and mixing ingredients or dishes is not allowed.

Immigrants have always come to the country, settle in an area in live for a few generations in a way not much different than they did in their home country. People have been saying the things you have since the beginning of this country. After a few generations (or more), children start wanting to fit in and start to move away from the old ways/language. So they "melt" into the culture of the country. Sometimes it can be hard to see the Assimilation esp when there is still strong immigration from the mother countries. So for every Hispanic that still speaks spanish and has strong Latino Identitiy. It's easy to miss the vast majority that are just as Americanized as any white kid. They may speak some Spanish, but their main language is English and except for skin tone they fit in completely. It's the same with much of the Asian Community, Families that have been here for many generations are very assimilated. Families that immigrated in the last couple of generations aren't quite as assimilated.

Also, some cultures don't completely assimilate, ie The Amish or Hassidic Jews. Both live their own way and in insular communities. Those different cultures add to the great country we have.

[Tasha]

I'm just the opposite - I find the idea to be generally silly and somewhat off-putting. In my primary fantasy campaign, warrior women are exceedingly rare, and the players handout says that if one is chosen, they will have to deal with prejudice and bigotry. Being a mage carries less issues, but women are expected to stay at home and raise kids. The cultures owes a lot to Saxon and early Norman cultures, and I try to play true to that. I'm not interested in equality or modern perceptions - I'm emulating a genre and period of history. If we do Traveller or Champions, then equality is expected, but not historical fantasy.

I guess you don't have many (any?) women playing in your games. It's not real fun to play the same crappy discrimination that one experiences in RL. All of that to the tune of "realism". That's why playing non-humans can be so fun. Those other species can and do have other cultural expectations of their women.

[Ragitsu]

I can sneak up on you, 'cause I'm an elf. You can't sneak up on me, though, 'cause I'm an elf. Hell, you can't even catch me sleeping, 'cause I'm an elf, and elves don't sleep. Even if I did sleep, it wouldn't work, because I blend into my surroundings due to my elf cape, which is just icing on the cake since my natural coloration helps me match my surroundings anyway. So here I am, not sleeping, not making a sound, and I can see you just fine because of my darkvision. And don't try enchanting me either, that shit ain't gonna fly, because I have magical elf immunity. Don't bother trying to outlive me, either; even though I have a diminished constitution, somehow I can live for over a dozen centuries. Did I mention I'm taller than you? How's the weather down there? It's awesome up here. Gives me a clear line of sight for when I plug you full of arrows from 300 yards. And if that doesn't take you down, no worries, I can bend bars and lift gates with the best of them, despite my lithe frame, so I can sure as hell waste your sorry ass with my elven curved blade if you get too close. Eww, do you smell that? Must have been you, because it definitely wasn't me. Elves don't fart. We glow, baby!

[Orion]

I guess you don't have many (any?) women playing in your games. It's not real fun to play the same crappy discrimination that one experiences in RL. All of that to the tune of "realism". That's why playing non-humans can be so fun. Those other species can and do have other cultural expectations of their women.

As mentioned in an above post, I have only met 2 female gamers in my life. One of those I GMed, but she would only do mindless dungeon crawls, regardless of GM, and so it was a moot point. If I had any expectation of being a GM for a female roleplayer, things might be different. As it is, the campaign settings I build tend towards a lot of historic realism/simulation, because that's where the fun is for me. In my experience, this type of setting limits the type of players far more than anything else. It's the relative lack of magic, no non-human races, dangerous combat, and required political roleplaying that turns off players, not the old fashioned sensibilities. Just my guess, but for every woman upset about female warriors being rare, there's another that doesn't care because she wanted to play a mage anyway, or is playing the Baroness or High Priestess, who don't have to take that shit from anyone.

[Lucius]

39204

Lucius Alexander

Palindromedary culture often confuses Humans who try to make heads or tails of it

[Ragitsu]

I guess you don't have many (any?) women playing in your games. It's not real fun to play the same crappy discrimination that one experiences in RL. All of that to the tune of "realism". That's why playing non-humans can be so fun. Those other species can and do have other cultural expectations of their women.

The one saving grace that comes to mind, is potentially playing a pioneer of rights...someone that could end up a legendary figure.

[Tasha]

The one saving grace that comes to mind, is potentially playing a pioneer of rights...someone that could end up a legendary figure.

Yeah but you can only play that trope a few times before you come to the conclusion that it's just easiest to become a Mad Slasher and just up and kill any NPC that disrespects you. You either do that or find some way to play your gender and not be treated like crap.

[Ragitsu]

Yeah but you can only play that trope a few times before you come to the conclusion that it's just easiest to become a Mad Slasher and just up and kill any NPC that disrespects you. You either do that or find some way to play your gender and not be treated like crap.

That's when you cycle through genres (and fantasy is but one of them).

[Remjin]

Yeah but you can only play that trope a few times before you come to the conclusion that it's just easiest to become a Mad Slasher and just up and kill any NPC that disrespects you. You either do that or find some way to play your gender and not be treated like crap.
It's not worth it. If someone is that much of a tool that they absolutely have to piddle on you for playing your own gender, find another group with fewer gender issues. Gaming is supposed to be fun. When it isn't, just move on. I walked out of half a dozen groups for just as many reasons before finding one I could stick with. I've had friends that were female have to cycle through a few groups before finding one that didn't have issues with a female in their midst. Add in the difficulties of the usual obstacles (chemistry, style, personalities) and its a crap shoot all around.

[Ragitsu]

If someone is that much of a tool that they absolutely have to piddle on you for playing your own gender

The problem is that not every GM is doing this for that reason: some genuinely believe they are adhering to some historical standard.

[Remjin]

The problem is that not every GM is doing this for that reason: some genuinely believe they are adhering to some historical standard.

Historically, yes, it can be legitimate. Still, we're playing a game for fun. Giving them some difficulty is all good in context of history, but there were extraordinary women who surpassed it. What is a game pc, if not extraordinary, and what is your game if one player has to spend it pissed off? If you refuse to do anything except this, what is the impetus for any female to play?

Besides that, this thread is about fantasy games, so anything of the sort is purely a matter of including it on purpose, as it is in any game of advanced pretend with your friends. By all means, if all of your players are on board, play it until the end of life itself and scream your fun and entertainment to the heavens. If you are pissing off one of your friends off all the time, know it, and don't care, because of some noble dedication to maintaining gender bias despite all the other things we ignore, then you're just being a tool.

[CrosshairCollie]

The problem is that not every GM is doing this for that reason: some genuinely believe they are adhering to some historical standard.

Like I recently said in another thread, unless your game is actually set in Dark Ages Europe, 'historical' don't mean crap.

[Ragitsu]

Like I recently said in another thread, unless your game is actually set in Dark Ages Europe, 'historical' don't mean crap.

A realism sentiment, but then again these kind of games aren't trying to be realistic...and so getting historical bits incorrect is but a small causality easily overlooked.

[Vondy]

Like I recently said in another thread, unless your game is actually set in Dark Ages Europe, 'historical' don't mean crap.

Gameworlds exist on a spectrum of historical simulation. On some level, be it slavishly loyal or absurdly elastic, the touchstone exists for convenience sake. A wholly alien world takes too long to build and requires too much player investment to get into. Whether or not 'historical' means 'crap' depends on the game world in question and the premises its designer chooses to work fun. Its both subjective and personal.

[megaplayboy]

Well, fun factor is an almost ruthlessly indifferent criterion for measuring any campaign--"if it's not fun, why are we playing this?"

That said, I did kinda sorta enjoy playing Harn, even though the combat system left me worrying about getting killed by small woodland creatures.

[Vondy]

Well, fun factor is an almost ruthlessly indifferent criterion for measuring any campaign--"if it's not fun, why are we playing this?"

100% - but different people have fun with different things. Its okay, in my opinion, for someone to run a historical game, or even a fantasy game that is pedantic about its historical counterpart cultures, insofar as they and their players are having fun. I admit to using historical counter-part cultures as a starting point, and being relatively 'realistic' about day to day life in them, but I always alter them enough to make them unique, leave myself loopholes, and allow for player input. And, I work from the baseline that PCs, on a cultural level, are allowed to be exceptional and break a few rules.


That said, I did kinda sorta enjoy playing Harn, even though the combat system left me worrying about getting killed by small woodland creatures.

I run a modified harnword using herosystem. Harnsystem is... heavily geared toward simulation rather than narrative-character. Let's leave it at that.

I stripped out the elves and dwarves, reworked the religion so that it was more 'rationalized' and regional, and decided the shek-pvar would be concentrated in emrelen-melderyn with other regions having their own magical traditions, and edited the cultures a little to taste. I basically run it as a pulpy low fantasy with more lieber, lovecraft, and howard than tolkein elements. That said, the 'down in the mud medievalism' way of running harn isn't the only way to read canon. The harn community tends to interpret it that way, but there are plenty of wild high fantasy elements in canon to emphasize.

And plenty of ways for women to play warriors, I would note. Harnic culture has female knights, and Invinian culture has shield maidens, and then there is the matriarchal amazons of Byria. And women are strongly represented in the guilds and priesthoods of harn. And in Harns governments and bureaucracies. Indeed, in Kaldor, two of the most powerful members of the royal bureaucracy are women. Overall, as 'realistic' as people say harn is, its a pretty good place to play a woman. Which is not to say most women in Harnic society don't deal with the rigid gender roles and expectations of the 'historical' terra its based on, but its designed with room to maneuver.

Which is something I always keep in mind when building my 'historical counterpart' cultures.

[Markdoc]

The problem is that not every GM is doing this for that reason: some genuinely believe they are adhering to some historical standard.

Ummmm. In a game with magic users? And monsters? Colour me sceptical. Certainly, in the games I've encountered where sexism is excused as "It's historical" nothing else seemed to get the same scrutiny: not the economy, nor the healing or general state of health, nor the social rigidity ... or ... well, you get the idea.

In the end, everything in a game is there because the GM chose to put it there. Nobody is forced to include something in their game if they don't want to, and all of us, as GMs take some pretty major liberties with ... well, almost everything really, from a historical perspective.

I like Harn world, not because it's "genuinely medieval" - it's not really, in most cases, not even close. I like it because, having made some decisions about moving away from a medieval simulation towards a medieval flavoured fantasy, the Harn community have tried to keep it internally consistent . That - to me - is what "realism" is about in a fantasy setting.

Cheers, Mark

[Ragitsu]

Ummmm. In a game with magic users? And monsters? Colour me sceptical. Certainly, in the games I've encountered where sexism is excused as "It's historical" nothing else seemed to get the same scrutiny: not the economy, nor the healing or general state of health, nor the social rigidity ... or well, you get the idea.

For the last time...I agree with you guys (*I* am the one who would keep pointing out the il-logic), but, after hearing quite a few GMs/players over the years, they will mention medieval Europe when it comes to aspects of fantasy settings (especially social and economic aspects). Because of this, there very well are GMs out there believing they are being somewhat historical.

Anyways, let's get back to race, because we're on a path of thread derailment.

[megaplayboy]

What about playing a non- or semi- anthropomorphic race?(e.g. beholder-kin, centaurs, driders, pseudo-dragons/faerie dragons/purple dragons, ki-rin, pegasi/unicorn, treants, etc.)

[Vondy]

Ummmm. In a game with magic users? And monsters? Colour me sceptical. Certainly, in the games I've encountered where sexism is excused as "It's historical" nothing else seemed to get the same scrutiny: not the economy, nor the healing or general state of health, nor the social rigidity ... or ... well, you get the idea.

In the end, everything in a game is there because the GM chose to put it there. Nobody is forced to include something in their game if they don't want to, and all of us, as GMs take some pretty major liberties with ... well, almost everything really, from a historical perspective.

I like Harn world, not because it's "genuinely medieval" - it's not really, in most cases, not even close. I like it because, having made some decisions about moving away from a medieval simulation towards a medieval flavoured fantasy, the Harn community have tried to keep it internally consistent . That - to me - is what "realism" is about in a fantasy setting.

Cheers, Mark


True. And I agree about the consistency. I also use the method of start with a historical baseline and move away from it. Its the easiest way to maintain a rationalized fantasy. Because all good fantasy has that strong, consistent thread in it.

On the other hand, in dealing with Harn, you end up being exposed to the economic consequences of the absence of tubers vis-a-vis the import of sugar cane and whether or not that would mean honey was the most economical and abundant form of sweetening in the region. And charts and graphs of arable land versus population with studies trying to answer enigmatic questions about low population density and top-heavy social stratification! Not to mention detailed disquisitions on whether Shenava or Viran represents a master among the Ancient and Esoteric Orders of the Shek-Pvar not just based on versioning discrepancies between printed editions and conflicts over author authority, but entire comparisons and contrasts with both Harnic and Terran guilds, and statistical analyses of the numbers mentioned for "master mages" in the books vis-a-vis the number of apprentices needed to keep the orders numbers at least static....

But, at least, there are female knights, shield maidens, and byrian amazon hotties! :eg:

[Ragitsu]

What about playing a non- or semi- anthropomorphic race?(e.g. beholder-kin, centaurs, driders, pseudo-dragons/faerie dragons/purple dragons, ki-rin, pegasi/unicorn, treants, etc.)

I would likely find that easier if the race could shapeshift.

[Vondy]

What about playing a non- or semi- anthropomorphic race?(e.g. beholder-kin, centaurs, driders, pseudo-dragons/faerie dragons/purple dragons, ki-rin, pegasi/unicorn, treants, etc.)

On Harn? There's no reason you can't include them somewhere in the world. On harn itself there's plenty of wild areas you could included such creatures. There's also a "god" on harn who creates monsters. That's what he does. You can just include them under that pretext. As for playing them as PCs... the Harnic baseline is that the average person has heard stories about magic and monsters and whatnot, but most people have never seen them. So, the question is, what kind of reaction does the PC get? Out of the box, probably not a very good one, but it wouldn't be too hard to adjust for it. The trick is to do it in such a way that such elements retain a certain amount of unique mystique and doesn't seem commonplace. And off of Harn there are entire cultures in remote regions that have only been described with a paragraph or two. It would be super easy to simply write your own version of them

In my games? I prefer to run humanocentric games. Most races like the one's you describe are not player races.

[Vondy]

For the last time...I agree with you guys (*I* am the one who would keep pointing out the il-logic), but, after hearing quite a few GMs/players over the years, they will mention medieval Europe when it comes to aspects of fantasy settings (especially social and economic aspects). Because of this, there very well are GMs out there believing they are being somewhat historical.

Anyways, let's get back to race, because we're on a path of thread derailment.

It is the destiny of all threads to be derailed in their time.

And most game-masters who insist their games are 'historically accurate' did not do the research.

[megaplayboy]

On Harn? There's no reason you can't include them somewhere in the world. On harn itself there's plenty of wild areas you could included such creatures. There's also a "god" on harn who creates monsters. That's what he does. You can just include them under that pretext. As for playing them as PCs... the Harnic baseline is that the average person has heard stories about magic and monsters and whatnot, but most people have never seen them. So, the question is, what kind of reaction does the PC get? Out of the box, probably not a very good one, but it wouldn't be too hard to adjust for it. The trick is to do it in such a way that such elements retain a certain amount of unique mystique and doesn't seem commonplace. And off of Harn there are entire cultures in remote regions that have only been described with a paragraph or two. It would be super easy to simply write your own version of them

In my games? I prefer to run humanocentric games. Most races like the one's you describe are not player races.

ah, thanks for the response, but I wasn't being Harn-specific. I just wondered who had any experience or insight into that sort of thing.

[Vondy]

ah, thanks for the response, but I wasn't being Harn-specific. I just wondered who had any experience or insight into that sort of thing.

Then.... "The trick is to do it in such a way that such elements retain a certain amount of unique mystique and doesn't seem commonplace."

[Kraven Kor]

Then.... "The trick is to do it in such a way that such elements retain a certain amount of unique mystique and doesn't seem commonplace."

Well, yes and no.

There is no reason a campaign setting couldn't have Dragons as a playable race and as numerous as people, with Dragon Cities and whatnot... but then anyone wanting to play a human is going to have to be mighty creative (and point heavy) to keep up ;)

Most of the players I have encountered who wanted to play some "monstrous" character, were doing so almost solely for the power aspect, and not a role-play aspect, though I won't claim that is the rule.

[Remjin]

You know, as races go, mostly I dislike elves. I usually play humans, with the occasional dwarf, in fantasy games. I dislike elves, and Ragitsu's post from previous pages pretty much sums up why I hate elves. Oh, and the recent Lord of the Rings movies didn't help.


I can sneak up on you, 'cause I'm an elf. You can't sneak up on me, though, 'cause I'm an elf. Hell, you can't even catch me sleeping, 'cause I'm an elf, and elves don't sleep. Even if I did sleep, it wouldn't work, because I blend into my surroundings due to my elf cape, which is just icing on the cake since my natural coloration helps me match my surroundings anyway. So here I am, not sleeping, not making a sound, and I can see you just fine because of my darkvision. And don't try enchanting me either, that shit ain't gonna fly, because I have magical elf immunity. Don't bother trying to outlive me, either; even though I have a diminished constitution, somehow I can live for over a dozen centuries. Did I mention I'm taller than you? How's the weather down there? It's awesome up here. Gives me a clear line of sight for when I plug you full of arrows from 300 yards. And if that doesn't take you down, no worries, I can bend bars and lift gates with the best of them, despite my lithe frame, so I can sure as hell waste your sorry ass with my elven curved blade if you get too close. Eww, do you smell that? Must have been you, because it definitely wasn't me. Elves don't fart. We glow, baby!

[Vondy]

Most of the players I have encountered who wanted to play some "monstrous" character, were doing so almost solely for the power aspect, and not a role-play aspect, though I won't claim that is the rule.

I'm sure many do focus on the power aspect. I was going to say, my experience is that a lot of them want to play something 'special' that says 'look at me!' And then tweet a lot of l33t speak garbage about it.

[Vondy]

You know, as races go, mostly I dislike elves. I usually play humans, with the occasional dwarf, in fantasy games. I dislike elves, and Ragitsu's post from previous pages pretty much sums up why I hate elves. Oh, and the recent Lord of the Rings movies didn't help.

Q: Why do you hate elves?
A: Orlando Bloom.

[Kraven Kor]

I'm sure many do focus on the power aspect. I was going to say, my experience is that a lot of them want to play something 'special' that says 'look at me!' And then tweet a lot of l33t speak garbage about it.

Fortunately, none of my players tweet.

Fortunately for their characters, that is ;)

[Shadowsoul]

I have thought about a Campaign in which the PCs are minions of the Dark Lord who survived their master's defeat at the hands of pesky heroes but have been banished to an alien realm for their trouble.

Character choices would include Orcs, Ghouls, Half-Ogres, Hellbats and Giant Spiders.

[Lucius]

Why Half-Ogres? Why not go all the way and play Ogres?

Lucius Alexander

and two half palindromedaries

[Ragitsu]

Why Half-Ogres? Why not go all the way and play Ogres?

Lucius Alexander

and two half palindromedaries

It's just a matter of taste.

[Shadowsoul]

You want to see a Giant Spider that's built on as many points as an Ogre fighter? Like that one in the 5e Hero Bestiary which is 8 times the size of an adult human?

Actually the points level would probably stretch to an Ogre or even a very big spider. Trolls, not so much.

[Orion]

I have thought about a Campaign in which the PCs are minions of the Dark Lord who survived their master's defeat at the hands of pesky heroes but have been banished to an alien realm for their trouble.

Character choices would include Orcs, Ghouls, Half-Ogres, Hellbats and Giant Spiders.

I once offered to GM a campaign that would have been based in the Underdark. No drow, gnomes, or dwarves allowed. Drider, hobgoblin, troll, etc was the expected races. Characters would live on the outskirts of drow society, act as occasional mercenaries to the drow, but be as likely to be bandits and thieves preying on drow. I hoped to have them working against each other as much as the drow, in order to have lots of intra-group conflict. Never could get it off the ground though.

[Tasha]

Well, fun factor is an almost ruthlessly indifferent criterion for measuring any campaign--"if it's not fun, why are we playing this?"

That said, I did kinda sorta enjoy playing Harn, even though the combat system left me worrying about getting killed by small woodland creatures.

I played in a Hero conversion of Harn. Though I often wonder if the Harnworld setting is purposely low magic and Harnmaster(or whatever the game system is called) system isn't a bit higher in magic. It always seemed to be funny that all of the world stuff always talked about how there was nearly no magic, and then you went looking through the RPG system based on the world and there was a ton of magic there. I dunno, Harn always felt kind of drab with all of it's "Realism". I guess I like high fantasy worlds more.

[Remjin]

Funny, I must be one of the few who don't even know what Harn is.

[Ragitsu]

Heroic Yarn.

[Vondy]

I played in a Hero conversion of Harn. Though I often wonder if the Harnworld setting is purposely low magic and Harnmaster(or whatever the game system is called) system isn't a bit higher in magic. It always seemed to be funny that all of the world stuff always talked about how there was nearly no magic, and then you went looking through the RPG system based on the world and there was a ton of magic there. I dunno, Harn always felt kind of drab with all of it's "Realism". I guess I like high fantasy worlds more.

A lot of emphasis is placed on simulating something akin to feudal society and a casual reading can come up a bit mundane, but if you sift a bit more carefully there are a lot of fantastic elements in harn you can bring to the fore of a game. Personally, I don't run my harnworld games on the island of harn itself. I run them in the Ivinian, Hepekerian, and southwestern lythian regions. Its a lot less developed and there's plenty of room to maneuver.

[CrosshairCollie]

Funny, I must be one of the few who don't even know what Harn is.

I played it a couple of times, found it resoundingly 'meh'.

[Remjin]

I played it a couple of times, found it resoundingly 'meh'.

Sounds like it.

[Tasha]

Funny, I must be one of the few who don't even know what Harn is.

It was one of the first "realistic" published world. http://www.columbiagames.com/cgi-bin/query/cfg/allharnitems.cfg Even if you don't use the setting, the city maps are beautifully done and well detailed. It really pushed the boundries of what players expected in city/setting supplements.

It was made "Low to no Magic" because it's usually easier to add magic to an existing setting, than to lower the magic in a setting. In otherwords it's low magic to make it very customizable to any GM's style. I guess like many old school gaming supplements, it's picked up it's set of "Orthodox" followers like everything else.

I played in a Harnworld game in the 80's. Like I said above the GM converted the world into Fantasy Hero. We played for a few sessions, but it was one of those situations of the Players wanting something higher Fantasy in feel and the GM wanting something low fantasy. He ran the world as having a bit higher magic than the Base Harnworld would have you believe the world has. Again I found that the Base setting book almost make the world low to no magic. The RP rules setting "HarnMaster" assume more magic exists (Almost Medium Magic, but not quite).

[Orion]

It was made "Low to no Magic" because it's usually easier to add magic to an existing setting, than to lower the magic in a setting. In otherwords it's low magic to make it very customizable to any GM's style. I guess like many old school gaming supplements, it's picked up it's set of "Orthodox" followers like everything else.

Current vocal Harn fanon prefers a very low-magic world, in which even admitting to be a mage is a Bad Thing, and many or most fantastic elements (magic, non-human races, divine intervention, monsters, etc) are little more than legends and superstitions to the great majority of the population. These are supposed to fantastic, not commonplace, and so are rare on purpose in many campaigns. In addition, it is quite common for an adventuring party to be comprised of farmers, guildsmen, and the hired held of nobles. Mages, knights, and priests are often used, but millers, yeoman archers, and scribes are just as common. If you like low fantasy or historical fiction, it works well.

I've been a Harn nut since about 1984, after seeing the beautiful maps they put out. The canon world contains much potential for magic, but it is assumed to be uncommon. The idea is that the common peasant rarely sees a magic spell, and has seen no monster other than an orc, and many never see that. The player characters may regularly see magic, monsters, and the like, and that is part of what sets them apart and makes them special. I would completely agree that it's much easier to add magic than to remove it. For my campaign, I've added a little, made it a little less fantastic, more socially acceptable, and it's still low fantasy - about a Deryni level of magic. If I had wanted magic to be common, I would have used Forgotten Realms, which I also owned at one time.


I played in a Harnworld game in the 80's. Like I said above the GM converted the world into Fantasy Hero. We played for a few sessions, but it was one of those situations of the Players wanting something higher Fantasy in feel and the GM wanting something low fantasy. He ran the world as having a bit higher magic than the Base Harnworld would have you believe the world has. Again I found that the Base setting book almost make the world low to no magic. The RP rules setting "HarnMaster" assume more magic exists (Almost Medium Magic, but not quite).

I also prefer to use Fantasy Hero rather than the HarnMaster game rules. While I love the world, the rules leave me cold. Luckily, they are separate products. The rules cover magic and religion, but they have to. You cannot have a fantasy game without rules for these, even if they are expected to be uncommon in the world. For every person wanting low or no magic, you'll have someone like me wanting Deryni running around, so the rules have to cover all bases.

[Vondy]

I also prefer to use Fantasy Hero rather than the HarnMaster game rules. While I love the world, the rules leave me cold.

This.