Fantasy Race Bloat?

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

What if they want to play a Copt' date=' or Bosnian, or Cornishman, or Andamanese or Yezidi?[/quote'] If they don't break the setting, and don't require me to have encyclopedic knowledge of the background (if I'm not familiar with that culture) who cares? If they want me to have more info on the ethnic flavor they have chosen they can provide it. I'm not trying to produce a documentary, but GM an RPG. My "home genre" if I have one is superheroes, and even if they are all human, some characters might be from the a distant future, one might be from a lost civilization of stone-age people trapped in caverns under the ice, etc.

 

Diversity isn't a problem. The problem only lies in those instances where all the differences are used solely to give the character an unfair advantage in some way. A good GM should be able to handle as many exceptions to the rule as he has players. It's been a while but I usually felt comfortable with between 2 and 5 players at the table, but I usually just made the scenarios up in my head as we went along*. The players' choices meant everything in those games, so much that I sometimes just threw out random clues for them to find just to see what conclusions they'd draw, and alter the facts to support their conclusions, especially if they were quite clever (and they were, more often than not).

 

* Supplemented by copious, if somewhat disjointed notes.

[Old Man]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I would like to take this moment to mention that I run a Rifts (HERO) campaign. Thing is' date=' Rifts has a built-in excuse for having so many races.[/quote']

 

Much like Gamma World is like having races without races, I see Rifts as having a setting without a setting.

[teh bunneh]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I've got a ton of different (player) races in my long-running Fantasy Hero game. In the West (where most campaigns take place), you've got pretty much the standard Tolkien-esque races:

- Humans

- Hobbits (3 varieties)

- Elves (5 varieties)

- Dwarves (3 varieties)

- Godstouched (with either divine or demonic blood)

 

In the South, you've got:

- Humans

- Saurians (lizard men, 2 varieties)

- Wemic (lion men)

- Osirans (egyptian demi-gods, sorta)

- Godstouched (with elemental blood -- fire, sea, wind, sand)

 

In the South-East, I have:

- Humans

- Bengali (tiger-men)

- Punjabi (kinda like elves, kinda)

- Tamili (tiny flying bear-like critters)

- Urdu (kinda like dwarves, kinda)

- Vanara (monkey men)

 

In the Far East, I have:

- Humans

- Hengeyokai (animal shape-shifters)

- Korobokuru (kinda like dwarves)

- Nezumi (rat-men)

- Godstouched (5 varieties -- sea, sky, mountain, forest, and sun)

 

So depending on where the game takes place, there's all sorts of varieties (even enough to keep Crosshair Collie happy, I'd wager). There's a logical explanation for the wide variety of sapient races, but it's not particularly important to the players so it's never really come up. They all just assume "it's magic!" and are happy with that.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I'd be happy to play in your world, Bunneh.

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I'd be happy to play in your world' date=' Bunneh.[/quote']

 

Ditto.

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Sounds like fun. I wish I lived closer.

[Portland Barbie]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

How much is a burden? That's going to vary from GM to GM . . . How many before you strain credulity?

 

Exactly. There's no hard-set number of races/cultures/species that, once exceeded, suddenly makes the game unbearable, or whatever.

 

My post you quoted was not stating anything about it becoming burdensome to the GM at a certain point, at least not as I'm assuming you took it. My reference to " . . . the burden of the GM" was in regards to making sure the number of races/cultures/species doesn't become too much for both him/her and the players. Once the game world becomes so inundated with variations of humanoids that it becomes difficult for the GM to maintain the "uniqueness" of each race, then it's become too much. Naturally this will vary depending on the individual GM, and to a lesser extent, the players since even if the GM can managably juggle 100 different races, without them blurring into "different looking humans with weird abilities", if the players don't really pay attention to the type of humanoid it is beyond the differentiation between "helpfiul npc" and "monster/source of loot" then there's not really a point for the GM to even put forth the effort.

 

And looking through the posts in this thread, I think the answer to the OP can be easily summed up as "it depends on the feel of the campaign, and the play-style of your players, combined with how much effort you are willing to put forth to make the races seem unique, and not just a set of abilities and different veneer thrown onto humans."

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Naturally this will vary depending on the individual GM' date=' and to a lesser extent, the players since even if the GM can managably juggle 100 different races, without them blurring into "different looking humans with weird abilities", if the players don't really pay attention to the type of humanoid it is [/quote']

 

That's me, really. I generally concern myself with my character and not much else; what other people choose to do with their characters isn't any of my business. I may be thinking 'I have no idea why you'd play a (X)', but I keep it to myself; none of my business. As far as the settings go, really, I mostly just concern myself with 'is there something here I want to play'. Whether I'm picking from a list of 4 or 40, I don't care.

[Tasha]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Exactly. There's no hard-set number of races/cultures/species that, once exceeded, suddenly makes the game unbearable, or whatever.

 

My post you quoted was not stating anything about it becoming burdensome to the GM at a certain point, at least not as I'm assuming you took it. My reference to " . . . the burden of the GM" was in regards to making sure the number of races/cultures/species doesn't become too much for both him/her and the players. Once the game world becomes so inundated with variations of humanoids that it becomes difficult for the GM to maintain the "uniqueness" of each race, then it's become too much. Naturally this will vary depending on the individual GM, and to a lesser extent, the players since even if the GM can managably juggle 100 different races, without them blurring into "different looking humans with weird abilities", if the players don't really pay attention to the type of humanoid it is beyond the differentiation between "helpfiul npc" and "monster/source of loot" then there's not really a point for the GM to even put forth the effort.

 

And looking through the posts in this thread, I think the answer to the OP can be easily summed up as "it depends on the feel of the campaign, and the play-style of your players, combined with how much effort you are willing to put forth to make the races seem unique, and not just a set of abilities and different veneer thrown onto humans."

 

I am sorry, all of this talk about "As long as they aren't all humans with different masks" is just elitist BS. EVERYTHING that I have ever seen even the best most persnickety Roleplay has been a Human in a different form. We are all humans, we can't really do anything different. What should matter is whether the players are having fun and the GM is having fun. That's why we play games. Anything else is just a distraction from the fun. Who really cares if MinMax gal plays her elf "In an authentic fashion" as long as she is having fun and is actually adding to the RP fun in the game.

 

Sorry to take this out on you, but this is coming up time and time again in this thread.

 

I guess some GM's see players not being "Authentic" and throw out the baby with the bathwater and create a fantasy world that is IMHO kind of bland. That's my taste, I like lots of options for players. I only balk at people who want to play badguys otherwise I say yes. I get happier players and a lot of diversity in my games. YMMV and while I shouldn't look down my nose at your choice (or lack thereof) in your games. You shouldn't look down your nose at people who want different things in their games.

[bluesguy]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Like I said earlier' date=' an elf and a dwarf from the same nation are more likely to get along and have things in common than two elves from different nations.[/quote']

 

This does make a lot of sense to me.

[bluesguy]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Again I go back to my current campaign where there is only one non-human, a dwarf. I have given the player some information about what dwarves are like in this world but I have basically said it is up to him to help flesh it out. Also the other players would like to find out where their friend comes from - the character would like to know that as well but he has been suffering with amnesia for the entire campaign - but that won't happen until I get some help fleshing out dwarven society from the player who wanted to play a dwarf.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I am sorry, all of this talk about "As long as they aren't all humans with different masks" is just elitist BS. EVERYTHING that I have ever seen even the best most persnickety Roleplay has been a Human in a different form. We are all humans, we can't really do anything different. What should matter is whether the players are having fun and the GM is having fun. That's why we play games. Anything else is just a distraction from the fun. Who really cares if MinMax gal plays her elf "In an authentic fashion" as long as she is having fun and is actually adding to the RP fun in the game.

 

Sorry to take this out on you, but this is coming up time and time again in this thread.

 

I guess some GM's see players not being "Authentic" and throw out the baby with the bathwater and create a fantasy world that is IMHO kind of bland. That's my taste, I like lots of options for players. I only balk at people who want to play badguys otherwise I say yes. I get happier players and a lot of diversity in my games. YMMV and while I shouldn't look down my nose at your choice (or lack thereof) in your games. You shouldn't look down your nose at people who want different things in their games.

 

Relax. Authenticity to racial canon (or striving to attain something close to said authenticity) and fun may be diametrically opposed concepts to some, but not all.

[Tasha]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Relax. Authenticity to racial canon (or striving to attain something close to said authenticity) and fun may be diametrically opposed concepts to some' date=' but not all.[/quote']

 

Just asking for a LITTLE respect for different playstyles. Assuming that people who don't like your playstyle are Powergamers, and only choose other races because they have 'l33t p0wrz' is more than a little insulting to people who like those races because they like being something that isn't human.

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Just asking for a LITTLE respect for different playstyles. Assuming that people who don't like your playstyle are Powergamers' date=' and only choose other races because they have 'l33t p0wrz' is more than a little insulting to people who like those races because they like being something that isn't human.[/quote']

 

I agree that different playstyles are very much group dependant - and it's clear that some people really enjoy having a broad range of races to choose from. That's really no skin off my nose.

 

I didn't get the impression that other people here were saying the only reason for choosing a race was 'l33t p0wrz'. Certainly I wasn't*.

 

For me, the "Humans in funny suits" comment to me speaks more to the GM. My fantasy game used to feature elves, and dwarves and gnomes and all the rest of the D&D canon, but even before I'd switched to Hero, I had started to drop them. As a GM, my feeling was "If all dwarves are basically short scotsmen, why - as a GM - should I even bother with Dwarves? If I wanted scotsmen, I'd have added Scotland."

 

So it's not really a question of powergaming: it's a question of world design. Perhaps more accurately, it's simply a question of personal taste.

 

cheers, Mark

 

*And it'd be hypocritical if I did. When I'm playing generic D&D style fantasy, I tend to pick the class/archetype I am going after and then choose the race that best complements that picture, so 'l33t p0wrz' most certainly figures.

[Orion]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I'm with Markdoc - if all non-human races are going to be played like they are humans, then they can choose human to start with. After all, if the cat person and bear person and bird person all act alike, then they are mostly likely being chosen based on stats, and they can have humans with those same stats. I'm sure that some pick them just because of the visual difference, but to me that is no different than "do I wear a red or blue cloak?" type choice.

[Enforcer84]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Sadly, it's not always up to you what the other players will do.

[Tasha]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I'm with Markdoc - if all non-human races are going to be played like they are humans' date=' then they can choose human to start with. After all, if the cat person and bear person and bird person all act alike, then they are mostly likely being chosen based on stats, and they can have humans with those same stats. I'm sure that some pick them just because of the visual difference, but to me that is no different than "do I wear a red or blue cloak?" type choice.[/quote']

 

Why do you assume that the person who wants to play Cat People or Bear people are choosing to do so because of Stats? They may like the culture. They may always play Cat people because they like the Species.

 

It's different from wearing clothing mostly due to the fact that a Non Human can't not be NonHuman. A Scotsman is only different from an Englishman until he opens his mouth. They are still both humans. The Scotsman dressed like a Englishman doesn't look that different. It's only when he opens his mouth that someone can tell he's not English. A Cat Person is furry, will always be furry. Even if she shaves off all of her fur her skull is shaped differently. It's the GM's job to play all of the NPC's and their job to play out that NPC's prejudices. Also, Being non human is a larger disadvantage in certain circumstances. ie the Cat Person is in a party who has to go though the Dog People's territories (the Dog People being a long time adversary and hated by the Cat people and who actually hate Cat People back). Well the Cat Person can't hide their species. So the party has to work harder to deal with the Tribe of Dog people. So choosing a race is a MUCH bigger choice than what color Cloak do I wear.

 

You the GM are making a judgement based on some prejudiced idea that you can tell people how to Roleplay. You figure that people don't play a dwarf "right" that they are trying to munchkin the game by picking the best species for their class. Who are you to tell a player that the character they built in their head isn't "Being played right". You may be running the game, but I think you have lost sight of the fact that you are just another player. If you annoy enough of your players by limiting their choices or by running game worlds they don't care for. You may find that you are a GM with no players.

[Clonus]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

I'm with Markdoc - if all non-human races are going to be played like they are humans' date=' then they can choose human to start with. After all, if the cat person and bear person and bird person all act alike, then they are mostly likely being chosen based on stats, and they can have humans with those same stats.[/quote']

 

Unless they can't. No enhanced night vision, ultrasonic hearing, millenial lifespan, functional wings, or ability to merge with plant life for YOU puny human! Then again you do have awesome superpowers like the ability to handle iron, walk around in daylight and swim.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

[Markdoc]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Why do you assume that the person who wants to play Cat People or Bear people are choosing to do so because of Stats? They may like the culture. They may always play Cat people because they like the Species.

 

The thing is, that in a world where sentients are all pretty much the same - the "humans in funny suits" approach - there isn't necessarily going to be a "cat person" culture. You made the point when you talked about how you'd play an elf: patient, refined, sophisticated. My reaction was "Wait, what? Elves are treacherous, unreliable, impulsive and have all the patience of a spoilt 6 year old! This is a culture where sensation is the supreme goal and which uses the same word for rape and lovemaking." Of course the point here is that my reaction describes the dominant elvish culture in my game world. It's got nothing to do with elves as an RPG race, per se. A friend, for example ran elves as feral, xenophobic barbarians, barely above stone age technology, much like Runequest elves. And for me this is the core of the problem: culture and species/race are not the same thing. When someone says "I want to play an elf" they usually mean the diluted tolkeinesque verson from D&D - not necessarily whatever the local translation of the word means. In other words, they want to play something from another game.

 

Sometimes that works. Sometimes, not.

 

So I agree that some people play different races because they like the species - visually, or because they have a mental picture of what the race should be like. We had a player a while back who always - regardless of setting - wanted to play a samurai. Clearly, he liked the concept. I see those two things as pretty much the same.

 

It's different from wearing clothing mostly due to the fact that a Non Human can't not be NonHuman. A Scotsman is only different from an Englishman until he opens his mouth. They are still both humans. The Scotsman dressed like a Englishman doesn't look that different. It's only when he opens his mouth that someone can tell he's not English. A Cat Person is furry' date=' will always be furry. Even if she shaves off all of her fur her skull is shaped differently. It's the GM's job to play all of the NPC's and their job to play out that NPC's prejudices. Also, Being non human is a larger disadvantage in certain circumstances. ie the Cat Person is in a party who has to go though the Dog People's territories (the Dog People being a long time adversary and hated by the Cat people and who actually hate Cat People back). Well the Cat Person can't hide their species. So the party has to work harder to deal with the Tribe of Dog people. So choosing a race is a MUCH bigger choice than what color Cloak do I wear.[/quote']

 

But here we come back to my earlier comment. All of this assumes the GM actually has "the Tribe of Dog people" and has figured out their history with the cat people. You could always say of course, that the Dog people are far away and let the PC make up their background and the history of these two peoples as they wish, since it's not going to impact the game ... but to me, that's as good as saying "Yeah, whatever, it doesn't actually matter". And really, if it doesn't matter, why bother? Why not play a character instead who actually has roots in the game world?

 

And of course, you are assuming what colour cloak you wear doesn't matter. But in Medieval Europe, walking into a city quarter wearing the wrong colour cloak could (in early medieval Constantinople, probably would) get you assaulted or killed. Culture is a funny thing!

 

You the GM are making a judgement based on some prejudiced idea that you can tell people how to Roleplay. You figure that people don't play a dwarf "right" that they are trying to munchkin the game by picking the best species for their class. Who are you to tell a player that the character they built in their head isn't "Being played right". You may be running the game' date=' but I think you have lost sight of the fact that you are just another player. If you annoy enough of your players by limiting their choices or by running game worlds they don't care for. You may find that you are a GM with no players.[/quote']

 

Having no players has never been a problem, nor has players leaving the game: for most players it's about Story! Excitement! Intrigue! Not about pointy ears or furry insteps.

My concern is less about players trying to munchkin their characters ... my players are really not very good at that anyway, by and large. It's more that someone wanting to play a D&D dwarf in a game where dwarves are small, stunted, malignant creatures that turn to stone in sunlight simply isn't appropriate. It's like the guy who insists on playing a samurai, regardless of setting.

 

In both cases, there are settings where it's completely appropriate: I've had a lot of fun playing a dwarf in D&D, stumpy little cliche or not. And samurai characters can work in a lot of settings, even outside feudal japan. Just not all.

 

cheers, Mark

[SSgt Baloo]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Perhaps the problem isn't race bloat but people who insist on running character types that are inappropriate to the setting?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Perhaps the problem isn't race bloat but people who insist on running character types that are inappropriate to the setting?

 

From what I read here, the line seems to be 'people who like race/culture stereotypes' and 'those who don't'. I, personally, consider how a player chooses to RP his character to be his own decision. If he chooses to play stereotypical elf #2852, that's his call. If he chooses not to, that's also his call. I prefer the latter, simply because I have been on receiving end of GMs who say 'You're an (X), you can't do that/must do this' and I find it incredibly stifling and annoying. I also took a lot of advice from the Eberron campaign setting, which operates more like I think; national cultures trump 'racial cultures'. I think of race purely as genetics, and it has no bearing whatsoever on your personality; no nature, all nurture.

 

Also, as I've stated above, I don't really think there's a bad reason to play a character except for trying to spoil anybody else's fun. If you want to pick a race based on stats or cool-powers-factor, that's fine with me; it's your business. If you want to pick it because you think they look neat, that's fine too. Backstory, culture, all good. So long as you're having fun and not ruining anybody else's fun in the process, I honestly don't care why you're playing your character of choice. I will, however, get ROYALLY ticked off if you try telling me I'm playing my character wrong because I'm not conforming to stereotypes.

[Ragitsu]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

It's not a matter of "stereotype" (which seems to have taken on a cheaper meaning in this discussion), but what makes a race...a race (beyond just the physical, anyhow).

[Steve]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

Tasha and Markdoc's opposing POVs are raising interesting questions on the culture of a race as it relates to gaming. Who defines a race's culture, the player or the GM? How much control should a given game world's culture have on its members? If a race is not being presented with a culture that could be traced back to fiction or other game systems, does that make the GM wrong to try and present something different?

 

I'm getting the impression from some in this discussion that limiting choices on race at all is a bad thing. An "all human" campaign is just not as inherently fun/interesting as one with a vast melange of racial options. Likewise, any attempt by a GM to enforce his game world's culture for a race on a player member of that race who has a different take on that race is wrong.

 

Take elves, for example. In works of fiction that are inspired by Tolkien's elves, that race is ancient, immortal and has a sort of weariness to it. Discworld elves are of a different mold from that. Warhammer elves are another variation as well. Some cross between D&D elves and Tolkien elves are what many players think of when they think "elf" in their heads. I'm getting the feeling that a player's view of a race supercedes any new or different take on the concept the GM might like to try. If they don't fit the cultural norms, then they are just rebels, and the player should be allowed to portray his character however he likes.

 

Do all fantasy game worlds have to be presented with this certain sameness? Are the "not just humans" bunch saying they just can't have fun playing a game unless Tolkienesque elves/dwarves are in it, at a minimum?

[CrosshairCollie]

Re: Fantasy Race Bloat?

 

It's not a matter of "stereotype" (which seems to have taken on a cheaper meaning in this discussion)' date=' but what makes a race...a race (beyond just the physical, anyhow).[/quote']

 

I suppose that's true. Of course, to me, race is solely physical, so there you go.