The Forge Archives

This is my first post at the Forge, so my apologies if it is somewhat off topic (and heavily biased).

I think that something that may help designers, authors, or even players of role-playing games in their pursuit of differentiation between species, race, and culture is reading material outside the game perspective.

To illustrate this, I have chosen two Sci-Fi novels with strong alien themes, but two very different approaches. Those that have read these can feel free to comment on my ignorance, as I know I am probably missing some key points from them.

The first is Larry Niven and Jerry Pournelle's masterpiece (IMO), The Mote in God's Eye. In this novel, mankind first meets extraterrestrial life. These aliens, although extremely different from us physically, are even more so culturally, which makes them seem more "alien." In fact, there are tragic consequences that are the direct result of the humans and the Moties (as they are called in the book) being incapable of comprehending each other. However, the Moties, although they start out very "alien," become more "human" as they associate and adapt their behavior to fit in with the "human" culture. This book I think will help anyone trying to create alien species (not races, species) understand that although physical differences are necessary, even more so is the idea that the aliens' way of thinking must also be dramatically different.

Another key point from this is that no matter how much time and thought you put into making a new species, from their mono- or multicellular bodies to their thought processes, you will end up humanizing them. It is, IMO, unavoidable. As humans, we can only express thought, even radically different thought, in human terms. So save yourself the agony from the outset.

Second, is Robert A. Heinlein's Stranger in a Strange Land. In this fascinating (although at times confusing) novel, Heinlein approaches the alien concept even more so as a racial and cultural difference. The main character, Valentine Michael Smith, is human genetically, and in physical appearance, but is so different from every other human being on the planet that he is essentially an alien. This is the result of a tragic set of circumstances that end with him being raised by Martians. Because he was surrounded by Martians, his cultural background is completely contrary to that of Earthly humans. In addition, he has slight physical differences and abilities that set him apart from other humans that he can actually be considered a separate race in his own right.

Valentine does become more "human" as time goes on in the story, but still retains enough of those differences that he is, and would always be, considered an alien.

So, my point is essentially this: That the same idea can be portrayed in a multitude of ways, and it helps to try as many of them as you can. However, from a game perspective, trying to bring all aspects of any "alien" character into play would indeed take some notable acting. And helping to provide the basis for (as authors), and acting on (as players) these aspects can be helped by understanding each separately and how they work with each other.

I don't know if it has been said in this thread or not, but it seems to me that you cannot have species without race, or vice versa, and that regardless of either you are developing, culture will always overlay and bind them.

So, maybe the issue isn't so much a lack of races for species, or cultures for races, but simply a lack of vocabulary on the part of the author, or the player, or whoever. Reading any material that is well written about the distinction and interconnectivity of said differences, be it racial, cultural, or biological, will help aid in the building of this vocabulary.

Quote from: Jason AaronThis is my first post at the Forge....

Welcome to the Forge, Jason. You've got some good ideas here. Forgive me if what I say sounds at all critical, as I'm going to hit two negatives.

The first is that I'm surprised this wasn't split by a moderator. Generally, once a thread falls off the "first page" it's considered dated, and if you want to comment on it you're supposed to start a new thread and link to the old one, and this looks like it was old enough that it did. But if they think so, they'll split it.

The second is a reaction I have to

Quote from: when youThis book I think will help anyone trying to create alien species (not races, species)....

I know that a good part of this thread is about the idea that the term "race" is being misused; but I think that in saying that aliens are a different "species" you're misusing that word even more so than those who so use "race". After all, if you're using it in a sense of taxonomy, an alien is not merely a different race, not merely a different species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and even kingdom. It is something inherently more alien than that--what Multiverser dubs a different "base", a creature not in any way related to life on earth. So it is not more wrong to refer to a different "race" in a taxonomical sense than to refer to a different "species". Of course it's a different race, like a Siamese cat is a different race from a Japanese fighting fish. They are also different species, genus, family, order, class, and phylum, being connected on the level of kingdom--they're both animalia, but one is chordata and the other isn't. So it's not taxonomically better to say "species" instead of "race".

Further, in usage, "race" has a meaning that is not taxonomical. We speak of the "human race". Purists will argue that we should be speaking of the "human species" and then within it distinguishing the "caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid" races (and some would argue that there are subraces of these which are also properly "races"). However, this use of "race" is not intended to be taxonomical. It means the "human creature". In that sense, an "alien race" means an alien creature of a particular type.

So I would contend that race is the better term for that application.

I may have mentioned something like this already on this thread; if so, I apologize for repeating myself.

--M. J. Young

Quote
After all, if you're using it in a sense of taxonomy, an alien is not merely a different race, not merely a different species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and even kingdom. It is something inherently more alien than that

Why?  Albeit the categories are artifacts, it seems reasonable to me that we would be able to locate such life in our schema, barring weird physics.

Quote
Further, in usage, "race" has a meaning that is not taxonomical.
We speak of the "human race". Purists will argue that we should be speaking of the "human species" and then within it distinguishing the "caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid" races (and some would argue that there are subraces of these which are also properly "races").

Yes.  Although even then, I wonder how often we would need to make the dubcategory distinctions.  They are, as you say, not taxonomical and the content alluded to in each varies according to the speaker.

Quote
However, this use of "race" is not intended to be taxonomical. It means the "human creature". In that sense, an "alien race" means an alien creature of a particular type.

I see nothing there that cannot be conveyed by "alien species" and a number of issues which are so avoided.

QuotePurists will argue that we should be speaking of the "human species" and then within it distinguishing the "caucasoid, negroid, and mongoloid" races (and some would argue that there are subraces of these which are also properly "races").

Purists? What does that mean?

Race is a relatively modern idea and has no genetic basis. It's purely a socio-political construction. Not one characteristic, trait or gene distinguishes all members of one so-called race from all members of another so-called race.

Hi Jason,

This subject has been approached a couple of times here, usually with a little more exposed each time we do so.  Let's try to seperated some concepts:

-Race/species/whatever in the "what effect does this have mechanically in the rules as written" sense

-Race/species/whatever in the "how we define it as Color/background/etc" sense

-Race/species/whatever as a metaphor or replacement for different cultures

The first case, we're talking about it as another splat.  "Of course we have elves and dwarves and orcs because we need to hand out different 'bonuses' and abilities to make the game interesting".   While this is fun in a crunchy, yaay more splats, sense, it really is a poor way to add something to a game, and you usually see it on the back of books when there's the usual blurb about "103 races to choose from!".

The second case is more of what you're addressing, and of course, is also highly linked into the difficult subject of conveying culture, mindsets, and outlook to folks who are completely unfamiliar with it.  Entire movies and books, as you've pointed out, have been written about this concept.  So, in games, its pretty hard to get this kind of stuff across, and still have room for everything else in the book.  Fulminata and Legend of the 5 Rings both do a solid job(at least as much as I've seen) in trying to convey an unfamiliar culture to players, although overall success may still be limited.

Finally, the third case has been brought up by Ron and some other folks, in that often the splat species serves as a metaphor when done right, or as a cheap dodge to avoid the real issues of human culture clashes based on ethnicity.  

Any thoughts?

Chris

First, my apologies for not starting a new thread in my previous post. I hope to avoid such ill manners in the future.

M.J., thanks for your post. I hadn't really considered my phraseology as an argument point, but was really just trying to convey that differentiating between these (even for myself), is a very tough issue, and that I applaud anyone who does it well.

For instance, can a culture become so prevalent and pervasive that it inherently has a physical effect on a race and thus changes it to another race entirely? I contend that yes, it is possible, although I think that such a culture would need to have a relative degree of isolation to effect such a change. Likewise, it could become very difficult to describe such a culture without speaking about the race and vice/versa. Although this is an extreme example of what I mean, I think it gives the general idea.

Chris, also a thank you for your reply on this. I think that the issue of using the "splats" as you call them as a cheap dodge may stem from, as Mike ranted about earlier, using them as an easy way out. And not just from a political or philosophical standpoint, but merely because of the amount of work involved.

Using "splats" is much quicker when putting a game together, or book, or movie, or whatever, than taking the time (key word here) to do it right. I know that if I ever were to seriously consider creating a new species or race or culture, I would be hitting the library, internet, local experts, etc. on the subject long before ever actually sitting down and trying to hammer it out. And working everything out and then finally putting it out would take even more time. I think this is the case in other subjects also, but I digress.

So, my question is, other than "raising the bar" ourselves, as has been spoken of in numerous threads throughout the Forge and other places, how can we expect to see a realistic change in the misuse of species/race/culture? We can't very well come down on anyone making a game just because it doesn't meet our expectations, and we also can't do it for them.

Forgive me for taking comments out of sequence; I think those which will be my major focus need to be in the context of these which precede them.

Quote from: Gareth a.k.a. contracycleI see nothing there that cannot be conveyed by "alien species" and a number of issues which are so avoided.

I may have come across too strongly in my post; it was not my intent to mean that "alien species" was incorrect or inappropriate. Rather, I was responding to

Quote from: what Jason Aaronto create alien species (not races, species)

from which I inferred (perhaps incorrectly) that he meant "alien race" was incorrect or inappropriate. My argument is that race is at least as correct or appropriate as species, and has some aspects of usage supporting it. I have no problem with someone who wants to say "species"; I also don't see that we should avoid saying "race" in the same context.

With that said, let me continue.

Quote from: Gareth first

Quote from: first quoting what IAfter all, if you're using it in a sense of taxonomy, an alien is not merely a different race, not merely a different species, genus, family, order, class, phylum, and even kingdom. It is something inherently more alien than that

Why?  Albeit the categories are artifacts, it seems reasonable to me that we would be able to locate such life in our schema, barring weird physics.

This is probably a valid point; but I'm not certain on that.

I'm quite aware that the taxonomical structure devised by Linnaeus predates Darwin by perhaps half a century or so (not real clear on the dates), and was not intended at the time it was developed to indicate "relationship" between lifeforms in the way we use it today. It only indicated "relationships" between creatures in a manner of observable similarity. However, I do not think it unreasonable to suggest that evolutionary theory has entirely coopted taxonomy. Our current view of the class "bird" (or I suspect it's "avianus" or something similar) has expanded through Darwin and modern studies beyond Linnaeus. It means all of:

• Shares observable definable common characteristics
• Shares specific common genetic structures
• Descends from a common ancestor.[/list:u]
  Now, clearly it is possible for "alien" creatures--those from a different planet--to be "birds" in the first taxonomical sense. It is improbable in the extreme that they would do so in the second, and impossible that they would do so in the third. As currently applied, taxonomy assumes all life on earth is related, descended from a single organism.
  
  If you toss evolution, then of course you eliminate the second and third aspects of the taxonomical relationships, and aliens could be "birds" or "mammals" or even "humans" in the sense of sharing the characteristics which are definitive of the category. You can also get some degree of linkage if you assume interplanetary/interstellar transmission of organisms (comet life theory, but comets don't currently make interstellar journeys--although if their origin is in explosions in other star systems, they could carry life in many directions). You still would end up with different kingdoms and phylums (bird-like creatures wouldn't be "birds" taxonomicallly, because they wouldn't be related to birds even as closely as dung beetles).
  
  Star Trek always had that interbreeding of creatures from different planets. Their eventual explanation (in Next Generation) is weak at best.
  
  I seem to have offended

  Quote from: Matt Wilson, whoPurists? What does that mean?
  
  Race is a relatively modern idea and has no genetic basis. It's purely a socio-political construction. Not one characteristic, trait or gene distinguishes all members of one so-called race from all members of another so-called race.

  I did not mean "racial purists", if that's what you're thinking. It didn't even occur to me until I wondered why the word seemed to bother you. I meant those who argue for pure use of language.
  
  Subcategories of species do exist. Among dogs and horses we call them breeds. A race or breed is an isolated group of a species which through interbreeding develops similar characteristics distinct from the species at large, but remains fully compatible genetically with othe rmembers of the species. I don't know whether chihuahuas can be said to have "one characteristic, trait or gene [which] distinguishes all members" from St. Bernards, but I know that they are both dogs, can be crossbred (with difficulty), and produce survivable reproducing offspring. I'm happy to admit that mongoloid, negroid, and caucasoid lines have so thoroughly interbred over the centuries that there are not distinct lines between them on any point. Anthropologists have sufficient reason to believe them independent that they have suggested distinct dates and isolated points of origin for each--they may not have been, strictly speaking, the same species initially, but merely extremely similar species who through interbreeding became one. That's more than I know. I do know that the three branches exist, however blurred the lines between them might be. There are differences in bone structure which, for example, connect aboriginal Japanese to Europeans rather than to modern Japanese (who are connected to Chinese and Koreans by similar skeletal characteristics).
  
  Race may be a modern idea. In the nineteenth century it was generally thought by those of European descent that those who were not light-skinned causasoids were a different species from themselves. (This was the reason otherwise moral individuals could support wholesale enslavement of a category of people: they were not viewed as people, but as animals more intelligent and trainable than apes or horses. There are numerous texts from the period, including from Civil War Confederate officers, noting that if the negro were demonstrated to be human, slavery would have to end.) The idea of race is an improvement over what preceded. Now, you can take away the word, but the idea will still exist--people who are different enough from those with whom you have matured will land in a category of "other". The distinguishing feature of the "other" is that the things that make them look the same, in the eyes of "us", overwhelm those which make them different. Otherness will remain inescapable until humanity is homogenized. Caucasions tend to use hair color, eye color, and skin tone as important identifiers of individual persons. When they are confronted by negroids and mongoloids, these cues are severely attenuated, causing these people to all "look the same". Negroids and mongoloids in their turn use different cues, and often have trouble (if they have not learned the other cue set) distinguishing one caucasion from another.  It is as in the exchange between Humpty Dumpty and Alice. He maintained that humans all look so much alike. She said one usually goes by the face. He countered that was exactly where they were so similar--eyes on top, nose in the middle, mouth at the bottom, never any variation at all.
  
  Race is not a socio-political construction. It's a recognized biological distinction, blurred around the edges. I'm all for blurring it, and I don't think it should have anything to do with anything that matters today apart from a few medical diagnoses (there are still diseases which are isolated to those of particular races and subraces, most notably sickle-cell anemia).
  
  Is that the problem?
  
  --M. J. Young

Race is not much better than specieis, given that it takes an act of creative imagination to understand someone who looks so much like you as being radically different.  And even then, I'm not sure that the position of C19th Europeans has much bearing on the issue, as a tiny minority of the global population.

Quote
Now, you can take away the word, but the idea will still exist--people who are different enough from those with whom you have matured will land in a category of "other". The distinguishing feature of the "other" is that the things that make them look the same, in the eyes of "us", overwhelm those which make them different. Otherness will remain inescapable until humanity is homogenized.

Well I'm inclined to disagree.  In fact I think that mutual humanity has been recognised often and frequently between groups; even declaring someone to be a "barbarian" or a "savage" recognises their humanity and qualifies it.  Humans learn each others languages easily despite the alleged  attenuation of cues - most of which I would venture are cultural rather than biological anyway.  I'm quite sure that language stands as a much greater barrier to mutual comprehension than does an epicanthic fold.

Indeed, humans have reliably and frequently superceded physical appearance - even among the allegedly variant Caucasoids - with clothing and sumptuary devices because individual distinctiveness was not distinctive enough.  Thus it seems to me that the appeal to an alleged inherent human horror of the Other is weak at best; at worst it IS the socio-political construction, an assertion of otherness despite the commonalities.

I recognise that there are biologically distinct groups of humans, but frankly the variation is not very large.  My problem then arises precisely because they are being in a lazy manner as splats - but the implicit assertion here is not that they might be prone to a specific disorder like sickle cell, but that they are Different in some other way - usually in ways that are essentially cultural ones.  Hence it would seem to me that we can still have splats without drawing a false attribution of physicality causing the distinctiveness of the splat - we can do it by culture instead.  In fact I woiuld suggest we already do, we just erroneously call it race.

Quote from: M. J. YoungNow, you can take away the word, but the idea will still exist--people who are different enough from those with whom you have matured will land in a category of "other". The distinguishing feature of the "other" is that the things that make them look the same, in the eyes of "us", overwhelm those which make them different. Otherness will remain inescapable until humanity is homogenized. Caucasions tend to use hair color, eye color, and skin tone as important identifiers of individual persons.
...
Race is not a socio-political construction.  

I'm not sure I'm understanding.  By saying it is not socio-political, you seem to be saying that Caucasians are genetically programmed to use skin color for identifying individuals.  I don't dismiss that out of hand, but I also haven't heard any evidence for that.  Presumably this could be tested for by studies of Caucasians raised in non-Caucasian communities.  They would have measurable perceptual difficulty distinguishing individuals compared to others in their community.  

I'm not an expert, but my impression was that there was not evidence to support this.  This suggests that race is a socio-political construct.  This is not to say that variations in human appearance don't exist, but that how we sort them into groups depends on social factors.  Thus, for example, Jews have in the past distinguished as a race despite their including multiple skin colors.  In regions with varying skin tone (like the Middle East and India), people will often not group themselves racially by skin tone -- but instead by other factors such as facial shapes, hair features, and so forth.  That is, a black person might view himself as a different race than another black person but the same race as a white person.  

Certainly it has been suggested many times in the past few centuries that skin tone is a good indicator of other genetic qualities, but nearly all of these have proven to be false.  That is, the old idea was that if you had two Caucasians and two Negroids, you could reasonably guess that the two Caucasians had more genetically in common with each other and less with the Negroids.  However, my impression has been that this has been found to be untrue: i.e. skin tone is not a good indicator of genetic grouping, compared to other features.  

Quote from: BankueiLet's try to seperated some concepts:
-Race/species/whatever in the "what effect does this have mechanically in the rules as written" sense
-Race/species/whatever in the "how we define it as Color/background/etc" sense
-Race/species/whatever as a metaphor or replacement for different cultures

I'd like to suggest another question: what have been different approaches to race/species in RPGs?  That is, most games use all three of the above: a race has mechanical features, culture and background, and metaphorical meaning.  Note that the game groups culture by race: i.e. each race has its own distinctive culture.  

An alternate approach would be to have cross-racial cultures.  So you might have elves, dwarves, and humans -- but they are split into mountain culture and plains culture, say.  Mountain elves and mountain humans identify with each other and are opposed to the plains peoples of all types.  Are there any RPGs which do something like this?

It seems to me that this discussion is heading into more of a societal discussion than that posed by the initial question (or rant). The topic at hand is a discussion of how to include and distinguish a variety of species/races/cultures in an RPG without having them all homogenized, and thus causing a level of frustration for those who wish to see at least a minimal difference between them.

As for whether it is applicable to this current discussion, yes. But I don't think it should dominate the underlying topic.

Quote from: John Kim
I'd like to suggest another question: what have been different approaches to race/species in RPGs?  That is, most games use all three of the above: a race has mechanical features, culture and background, and metaphorical meaning.  Note that the game groups culture by race: i.e. each race has its own distinctive culture.  

An alternate approach would be to have cross-racial cultures.  So you might have elves, dwarves, and humans -- but they are split into mountain culture and plains culture, say.  Mountain elves and mountain humans identify with each other and are opposed to the plains peoples of all types.  Are there any RPGs which do something like this?

Quote from: in addition to the question I
So, my question is, other than "raising the bar" ourselves, as has been spoken of in numerous threads throughout the Forge and other places, how can we expect to see a realistic change in the misuse of species/race/culture? We can't very well come down on anyone making a game just because it doesn't meet our expectations, and we also can't do it for them.

Is more of what I was hoping to see in this thread. Perhaps some examples, as John suggested, would be the best starting point, where we can see how one designer approached it, how it could have been done differently, and what are its pros and cons with relevance to portrayal of differing species/race/culture, insomuch that it makes them distinct enough (pretty hard to do well IMO) to the reader.

I think that this will lead (hopefully) to a more productive discussion on specific ways that we can improve our craft.

M.J.:

No offense taken, but I think you're very wrong about the whole "negroid" and "caucasoid" thing. Those terms were conjured up by Johann Blumenbach in 1776, placing "Caucasians" at the top of a hierarchical pyramid, because he believes a skull found in the Caucasus Mountains is the "most beautiful form...from which...the others diverge."

Consider this statement by the AAPA, more of which can be found here:

http://www.physanth.org/positions/race.html

QuoteThere is great genetic diversity within all human populations. Pure races, in the sense of genetically homogenous populations, do not exist in the human species today, nor is there any evidence that they have ever existed in the past.

Hi Jason,

I agree that the social issues are a little off target here.  What is interesting to note, is that these real world attitudes have a big effect on their treatment in game.  Consider the oft used real world phrase, "...but you don't act black!" and replace black with any other ethnicity, culture, religion, ork, vampire, elf, whatever.  

I haven't seen too many games delve deep into the complexities of the social structure based on culture.  Consider games which exist in very sexist or racist societies and that such issues usually get a paragraph or two in very neutered terminology that basically say, "These folks have it bad off" in a not very exact fashion.

So far, the games that I've seen best handle this sort of issue explicitly are Fulminata and Hero Wars, although both expect you to come to the table with an understanding that life is complicated, and people are individuals, a mixture of many things.

Chris

Quote from: JasonIt seems to me that this discussion is heading into more of a societal discussion than that posed by the initial question (or rant). The topic at hand is a discussion of how to include and distinguish a variety of species/races/cultures in an RPG without having them all homogenized, and thus causing a level of frustration for those who wish to see at least a minimal difference between them.

Jason. I was just thinking that I didn't tie either of my posts in, so here's an attempt to make up for it.

I think understanding conceptions of race where modern humans are concerned can be useful in creation of fantasy or scifi races. Are humans the norm against which other species are measured? If the main characters in teh game are humans, that might be a good choice, but it depends on what you want to get out of your mix of species and cultures.

With aliens and elves, you can consider whether to present them as very essentialized (all elves/klingons are quick and have ADD), and then decide whether that's the truth or whether it's a human perception of elves/klingons. How much actual diversity is there within the elf culture? Do they tolerate the diversity? What about the elf who wants to be a dentist?

In the Mote books, the reader never really sees through the eyes of a Motie. The viewpoint is always decidedly human. So there may be much more to the moties as a culture than we are aware of. But IIRC they're significantly essentialized. Browns are like this, and so on. Maybe the significant differences are things that culturally humans arent' really attuned to.

Hi Matt,

I wasn't suggesting that societal concerns don't factor in to this topic, simply that I didn't want this to turn into a discussion about human behavior, or "what is wrong/right about society." That should be reserved for a forum other than this one.

In fact that is somewhat what I was touching on in my initial post, that as humans ourselves, everything we do, say, and most importantly, think, will be in essence, human. Even the wildest, morally questionable, horrific, etc., thoughts that we think are still human, because they are the only terms we can think in. Should we ever have the opportunity to experience life as a true alien, or even as another species, we would become "childlike" in our thinking. I use the term childlike because we couldn't just jump into the experience with our current knowledge, because then we would simply be humans with a different skin. This was iterated in Mike's initial post on this subject and this is something of a more philosophical nature than I was hoping to get into.

Again, I'm hoping to get specific examples of RPG material that either shows this distinction well (as sort of a how-to list similar to the one found in Mike's "Know Your Craft" rant), or shows how it was done poorly. Now I know that these are objective statements, because what seems "poor" to one person might seem "rich" in detail to another. Now I am not saying I want a listing of every game that has multiple races, cultures, etc. I am specifically looking for games that hit two main points:

1) Different mechanics for different Species/Races/Cultures. Specific examples that show how choosing one of these affects actual gameplay. For example, if I choose to be an Elf, I get infravision, but as a human, I do not. I would love to see an example of a game, or a theory for one that the mechanics would be almost entirely different if you choose to be a different species/race/culture.

2) Detailed Setting that makes clear the differences between these, and their interrelation between each other. Not so much as a "you must play your character this way" as a "this is what they are like, try to shoot for this." An example of this would be a game that set out very distinct cultures for the same race, so that the suspension of disbelief is not so easily torn apart.

Jason-

QuoteI would love to see an example of a game, or a theory for one that the mechanics would be almost entirely different if you choose to be a different species/race/culture.

I think it's rather lame when people do this, but I'm going to, anyway:
So my game, Ashen, is about this.  

Given different races/cultures, my thought was that to get people to play in different styles, different things needed to be incentivized.  Basically, each culture has it's own set of metagame perks.  (I'll go ahead and post it in some form this weekend.)

The end result is essentially Cosmic Encounter: The RPG.  Given the same situation, different cultures will have optimal strategies and therefore will behave differently.


Example:
(pre-renaissance Italy colonizing types)
The resolution mechanic uses a custom deck of cards.  
1) For these guys, the Ethos suit (always a placeholder) acts as the Flow suit.
2) They can once per session demand a card from their fellow players ("Highest Focus card!")
3) They get a bonus when taking a round to impair their opponent (vs pushing for resolution)


Your other point is about writing a good setting, but I'm throwing this out as what you're looking for, mechanics-wise.
Thoughts?

I'm quite interested to see what other games people bring up.

-Matt

Quote from: Jason AaronI am specifically looking for games that hit two main points:

1) Different mechanics for different Species/Races/Cultures. Specific examples that show how choosing one of these affects actual gameplay. For example, if I choose to be an Elf, I get infravision, but as a human, I do not. I would love to see an example of a game, or a theory for one that the mechanics would be almost entirely different if you choose to be a different species/race/culture.  

I think there are two approaches to this.  One is to try to insert flavorful race-specific mechanics.  For example, Vincent Baker's OtherKind makes the four races differ in fundamental ways -- each having different ways of taking damage, for example.  

Another way is in race design itself.  For example, Aurora has some extremely alien races such as the silicon-based Uhrmina which perceive through radar and crawl on asymetrical bodies.  I tend to think that Aurora goes a little too far with some of its races, in that they are simply impossible to reasonably play.  

A less extreme example of an alien race would be Traveller's Zhodani.  They are human but have integrated psionic powers into their society.  In particular, they have actual Thought Police -- but these are not viewed as a totalitarian control, but rather as a helpful health service.  

This is the sort of alien approach which I have felt works the best, in that there is a distinct difference which colors nearly all aspects of life.  Infravision can easily be forgotten, but a change which is more extreme and integral can't be.  

Quote from: Jason Aaron2) Detailed Setting that makes clear the differences between these, and their interrelation between each other. Not so much as a "you must play your character this way" as a "this is what they are like, try to shoot for this." An example of this would be a game that set out very distinct cultures for the same race, so that the suspension of disbelief is not so easily torn apart.

This would be interesting as well -- but I don't think I've ever seen it.  As far as I can recall, every game has a particular culture for a given non-human race, and the only exceptions are when they don't include any culture at all.  

A side note:  One of my favorite past PCs was from a fantasy version of Europe with dwarves, elves, and magic mixing it up with the Roman Empire, feudalism, etc.  He was a Romanized elf -- an elf whose village had been brought under Roman rule, and being young at the time he adopted the Roman ways.  He was extremely disparaging of the barbaric, tree-hugging ways of his past compared to the great civilization of the Empire.  It was very interesting to play.

Quote from: John KimI'm not sure I'm understanding.  By saying it is not socio-political, you seem to be saying that Caucasians are genetically programmed to use skin color for identifying individuals.  I don't dismiss that out of hand, but I also haven't heard any evidence for that.  Presumably this could be tested for by studies of Caucasians raised in non-Caucasian communities.  They would have measurable perceptual difficulty distinguishing individuals compared to others in their community.

I apologize for a lack of clarity on this.

Studies in law have demonstrated difficulty in cross-racial identifications--that is, caucasiod witnesses have trouble distinguishing negroid suspects from each other, or mongoloid suspects from each other; negroid witnesses have similar difficulties with both caucasoid and mongoloid suspects, and the same for mongoloids attempting to identify caucasoids and negroids. However, this is heavily caveated.

One point is that it has less to do with skin color and more to do with bone structure. The nuances of facial distinction which are most easily distinguished in caucasoids are significantly attenuated in others, and it works the other way as well. These are not universal to any group, but they are common.

Another point that must be made is that the recognition factors have more to do with culture than with race--that is, it's a matter of upbringing, not genetics, in its essence. If I have trouble distinguishing blacks from each other, it is because I grew up in a part of the world in which there were very few, particularly when I was very young. The first faces any child sees (for any prolonged exposure) are the members of his family, and he uses these as a baseline for identifying other faces. The more different in structure a face is from those of his family, the more difficult it is for the child to distinguish one face from another which share similar characteristics.

Years ago when I was in high school, a black friend at camp ran an afro pick through his hair. I watched. When he was done, I said that surprisingly I could not tell the difference made by the effort. He responded that he often found he could not tell what difference combing hair made for white people. We had each had far more exposure to people like us than unlike us, and so had learned to recognize nuances that distinguished people who were extremely alike better than rather gross distinctions between people who were more different from us.

There's a popular story about the Five Chinese Brothers; it's been rendered to a cartoon somewhere. The essence of the story is that each of the brothers has an incredible power. One of them offends the emperor, and is sentenced to death. He asks if he can return home and say good bye to his family first. He is replaced by a brother whose power enables him to survive the intended method of execution. Another method is ordered, and the process repeats with another brother, and on through all five, until the emperor decides he can't be killed and lets him go.

I thought about this once, and realized that not only was this a rather racist story, it was a strictly European story. It was founded on the core concept that all Chinese people look alike, and therefore five brothers would be so completely indistinguishable from each other that no one could tell one from another. Had it been a genuine Chinese fable, it would have been something like The Five Swedish Brothers--five young men who had golden hair and bright eyes, who were all so very tall, and so couldn't be distinguished from each other because they were all exactly the same. The Chinese Emperor would not be fooled by five brothers, because he would be able to see the differences between them--he is culturally attuned to note those distinctions, where Europeans in the main would not be.

As to whether there are genuine distinctions between caucasoid, mongoloid, and negroid races, this is not my field; I'm working from some educational televion instruction in anthropology (I did have some of that in college, but not much). It was connecting early American skeletal remains with caucasoid structures common to Europeans, but more significantly to aboriginal Japanese, and modern Native Americans to mongoloid structures. The inference drawn was that the ancient burial grounds of unidentified prehistoric Americans were of those who had migrated from Asia connected to the Japanese and a few other caucasoid peoples, and not related to current Native Americans, who were descended from a later migration of the mongoloid Asians currently dominating the continent. There is nothing in this regarding skin color; caucasoid aboriginal Japanese have yellow-hued skin.

The core concept is that at some point these three basic skeletal structures either emerged or diverged, and genetic relationships can be traced in part through this. The fact that the names originated from someone who (incorrectly and inappropriately) presumed one was "original" or "best" does not invalidate the distinctions nor the relationships they imply.

Which brings up another aspect to the game relationship: how do races really see each other?

I don't think I've ever been in a game in which race or culture made much difference. Stop and think about this; even between members of the same race, wouldn't cultural differences blur the ability to distinguish individuals?

I'm thinking that when I go to a big party, like a wedding reception, the women are all dressed in fancy dresses, and to some degree I can identify them from across the room by the dresses they wear. I can also tell that they are not the men, whom I identify by the suits. That's also interesting, because the difference between one suit and another is relatively minor, but because I'm accustomed to these as a form of dress, I can often parse the nuances at a glance, and so recognize someone from across the room with his back to me strictly by the fact that I know what suit he's wearing.

How would it be were I to attend a reception in which everyone was wearing brightly colored kimonos? To those who are familiar with such garb, they would immediately spot the differences in cut and pattern of one and another. To me, it might be all night before I could reliably identify male dress from female from any distance, and I might not be able to pick out my hostess even standing near her without being able to see her face.

Yet we regularly have elves meeting dwarfs, Romulans meeting Klingons, and finding the ability to recognize individuals simple enough. I would think it would take time before Bilbo could tell Gloin from Balin, not having known dwarfs at all during his life. Why don't Legalos and Gimli confuse Pippin and Frodo, at least once in a while? It is an axiom in drama that you need to have actors and actresses in key rolls who look very different from each other, so that the audience can quickly attach identity to the right face (although having famous faces can overcome this, which is one reason why name actors are in demand). Do we adequately address the difficulties people of different races and cultural backgrounds would have in recognizing each other, even after they've met? I think perhaps this could be better addressed.

Well, that's more than enough from me.

--M. J. Young

It is definitley the case that the more familiar you are with a set of behaviours or devices of public display, the easier it is to see subtle distinctions.  And conversely, ghetto-isation and deliberate segmentation of society can be exploited to reinforce the sense of otherness and the inability to go from a generalised to a specific recognition.  I also agree that when you want easily accessible, and rather superficial, recognition to happen than the broader the brush the better.

As MJ says, even people of very similar phenotypes may not recognise each other based on expectations of dress - the Prince and the Pauper is an exercise on this theme.  "Clothes maketh the man" as we used to say, and they are often used to establish social ranks and public prestige, but this very seldom appears in RPG.

But all this reinforces my discomfort with race-based splats.  Sure - culture based, class-based, group-based: but when we see the specific combination of biology and culture conflated, then all the subtleties we have been discussing get lumped into stereotypes.  I would love to see games which did address some of the ways in which human groups distinguish between each other, construct symbols by which to distinguish each other, and the relationship between the general perception and the specific reality.  I just don't want to see a race-based splat ever again unless there is some absolutley startling in-game reason for it that adds value to the game itself. (so like, I will concede perhaps the Dralasite from Star Frontiers has such a unique morphology that it likely shares few properties/concerns with more familiar forms).

M.J.
First off: I think that is an interesting, and generally correct point. However:

I would be surprised if the problem is as severe as you mentioned.  The things with witnesses is that they usually don't see someone under conditions that are conductive to recognizing them again. I think is someone actually talked to someone f2f for a while, the would probalby be able to recognize the person for a while afterward. Also, dress is a factor.  For humans, there are a number of common facial bone structures, even within a race.

     I guess my point is that humanoid races should be able to distinguish between members fairly well, although it is possible for two members to look alike, this would be an exception rather than the rule. (just more commone than in the case of a race the viewer was used to).

I can definaly see there being a problem for races that use vastly differnt visual cues(not to mention  cue's humans can't sense).  I definaly think this could be an interesting twist in some games.

Quote from: Jason Aaron
In fact that is somewhat what I was touching on in my initial post, that as humans ourselves, everything we do, say, and most importantly, think, will be in essence, human. Even the wildest, morally questionable, horrific, etc., thoughts that we think are still human, because they are the only terms we can think in.

I think this can be pushed too far, and often is. Inteligent aliens
still live in the same universe (if not the same world) as us, with
the same physical laws and the same principles of nature.
Therefore it is not unresonably to assume that they are likely
to have some things in common with us. Given multiple alien
species from different worlds, some are likely to be more like us
than others.

QuoteShould we ever have the opportunity to experience life as a true alien, or even as another species, we would become "childlike" in our thinking. I use the term childlike because we couldn't just jump into the experience with our current knowledge, because then we would simply be humans with a different skin. This was iterated in Mike's initial post on this subject and this is something of a more philosophical nature than I was hoping to get into.

My favourite non-human species in roleplaying games are the trolls
(Uz), dwarves (Mostali) and elves (Aldryami) of Glorantha. In fact
the trolls of glorantha are probably one of the best developed
non-human spcies in roleplaying. None of these has much in common
with their Tolkien equivalents, and were developed completely
independently of them. Any similarities are superficial and derive from
their common ancestry from north european myth.

No game mechanics are given for roelpaying them differently
though. I'm reminded of a comment Lurence Olivier made to
Dustin Hoffman after Hoffman explained 'The Method' to him
"My dear fellow, why don't you just Act?" In RQ, and in HW,
you're expected to just roleplay.

I'll cut-n-paste froma  Glorantha Digest article of mine from 1998,
that explains how these races emphasize different psychological
traits. It might be useful to look up Id, Ego and Superego first,
if you're not familiar with those terms.

---------

Supposedly, trolls emphasise the id, mostali the ego and aldryami the
superego. ie :

Trolls are motivated by their instictual desires for food, offspring,
social power, etc. Their lack of an ego means that they have no real
sense of being a 'part of things', their lot in life is simply necessery
in order to get more food, beer, offspring, etc. The only way to prevent
them from satisfying their primitive needs is through force, or the
threat of it. They have no moral sense (superego), hence the brutal
nature of Troll society.

Mostali emphasize the Ego. Their whole purpose and raison d'etre is to
work on the world machine - their conception of reality. Their whole
lives are dedicated to fullfilling their need to feel usefull. Their
personal needs (id) are of minimal importance and they have no moral
sense (superego) whatsoever. They simply do their job, whatever the
consequences - forever.

Aldryami emphasize the superego. Their entire lives are dedicated to the
protection and service of their mother Aldrya (internalization of
parental conscience), and their home forest. Their whole lives are
dedicated to the service of their home and people. Their personal
desires and needs (id) and sense of individual achievement and possition
in the scheme of things (ego) are superfluous to them.


Simon Hibbs