Race/Species in Fantasy RPGs: Is It Necessary?

[Justin Marx]

This may be considered off-topic.... but I offer it anyhow:

Why would aliens have drastically different ways of thinking than humans?

The way I look at it, all human action is based on survival instincts: eating, defending, and procreating.  Love and friendship is merely a complex way of involving other beings in your protective circle.  Sex is an instinctive desire to find "sufficient" genetic material to pair with, and physical attraction only a visual method of gauging the healthiness of the potential mate, while mental attractiveness assures the mate's ability to protect and nurture offspring.  Selfishness is about hoarding food because of the fear of its absense.  Most "peculiar" behavior in animals can be explained by studying them in their environments.  Only the physical hardware a lifeform is equipped with will actually alter how it interacts with the surrounding world.  And given that life exists to sustain itself, procreate, and then die, the only three important factors in the "thinking" of any lifeform would be food, sex, and health.

That's a pretty strong, and I might say a reductionistic, opinion. Yes, species exist to self-propagate. How, they do this, and what they think about the things they do, however, is remarkably different - this subjective difference is plainly evident in ethnography and anthropological theory. The ideas you presented reflect the concept of functionalism in anthropology, first advocated by Malinowski in the early 20th century. The problem with this view of society and action is that while it may (and I say may, because while I agree with the survival instinct as a near-universal, I certainly do not with your other propositions - but this conflict is the same as between the biologists and the social anthropologists) explain why people do things, it completely removes the substance of what they do. If we simplify all animals, aliens and human beings down to our survival instincts (instincts, I might add, that are often overcome in humans - suicide being the most obvious point - it defies the survival instinct, and is one of our claims to uniqueness as a species), then we will all act the same. Why bother? What possible use is that to adding colour to a game, when adding different species is precisely an attempt to do just that?

I think our tendency to use humans as a base-line for understanding thought is because we have no other choice. Anthropomorphism rules here. I personally attempt to resist this urge in my thinking when constructing non-humans, or for that matter, the ethnocentrism that underlies our understanding of human cultures, especially ethically. These values underpin most of our character actions, at least subconsciously, unless we are working from a specific and well defined premise (e.g. the bushido code of self-sacrifice). What I think is interesting is inventing these alternate moral rationalisations, using as much imagination as we can muster and a healthy dose of cultural and historical study, which for me at any rate, puts the entire thing in perspective.

But as I said, we may never see eye to eye here because the biological and sociological schools rarely do either. To say that all action is about survival makes the action itself meaningless. Yet as rational beings we are constantly acting, thinking and appraising meaning, which influences what we do in a vast way. Intelligence is an adapted trait, there is no denying that. But what we do with our ability to invent and think is socially and culturally constructed, and limited by our physical and environmental situation, not the reverse..... I am ranting anthropology again, I'll give it a rest. By saying that the people who dropped the A-bomb were ensuring their own survival is true, in an abstract way.... but it completely washes out the substance of what they do. It also probably does not describe what the bombers were actually thinking when they were doing it.

Not sure if this derailed the topic either, but at least we will be off-topic together.

[Green]

What about those of us who like the idea that alien races are supposed to be variations of humanity.  Not just humans in funny suits, but human beings explored from a different lens: adding, removing, or altering traits that we tend to identify as human.  Things like mortality, empathy, reason, instinct, and sensory perception (with a strong preference for vision).  In other words, alien races can bring into focus a lot of the things we take for granted about our humanity, thus allowing us to see what we would be like were we different in particular ways.  Unfortunately, alien races (or rather, anything beyond the assumed WASP background of roleplayers) rely on cariacature to make them understandable, thus stripping away a character's identity rather than enriching it.

For instance, let's consider anthropomorphic animal races.  Imagine what would happen if dogs were endowed with human-like intelligence.  Let's not talk about the plausibility of such a thing, or make assumptions about any other traits they possess aside from human-like mnemonic, reasoning, and creative abilities.  Given their instincts and their ways of perceiving the world, how would they express their "humanity"?  What kinds of societies would they have?  What would their language be like?  Their arts?  And so on and so forth.  Even then, there are thematic elements that function within both cultures and individuals.  Is loyalty a virtue or a habit?  To what extent is the well-being of the individual the well-being of the whole?  How does a different sensory orientation influence our understanding of what is beautiful?  From whence does the conflict between reason and instinct derive?  Etc.

[Justin Marx]

For instance, let's consider anthropomorphic animal races.  Imagine what would happen if dogs were endowed with human-like intelligence.  Let's not talk about the plausibility of such a thing, or make assumptions about any other traits they possess aside from human-like mnemonic, reasoning, and creative abilities.  Given their instincts and their ways of perceiving the world, how would they express their "humanity"?  What kinds of societies would they have?  What would their language be like?  Their arts?  And so on and so forth.  Even then, there are thematic elements that function within both cultures and individuals.  Is loyalty a virtue or a habit?  To what extent is the well-being of the individual the well-being of the whole?  How does a different sensory orientation influence our understanding of what is beautiful?  From whence does the conflict between reason and instinct derive?  Etc.

That's exactly what I was saying, perhaps I mis-interpreted the other point of view. I felt that people were suggesting to make up alternate races who were indistinct from humans except for one or two characteristics/caracatures (for example, the mainstream treatment of Elves, Dwarves, Klingons etc.... although I stress the word 'mainstream', as many people have explored these concepts in the above fashion before). And that's an excellent point regarding desiring to play variations on humans from the point of view to explore those facets of human thought and action by emphasising or negating them. Point made.

I think some of the points said on this thread were along the lines of: why do we need to make a new race to explore these themes at all? I think the answer comes down to adding colour as well as asking exploratory questions. And different strokes and all that when it comes to player preference of which is more important.....

I'm just the sort of person who thinks exploring the consciousness of a billion year old passive sentient star would be cool.... have no idea how to turn it into a game yet however.

[simon_hibbs]

I think some of the points said on this thread were along the lines of: why do we need to make a new race to explore these themes at all? I think the answer comes down to adding colour as well as asking exploratory questions. And different strokes and all that when it comes to player preference of which is more important.....

Facilitattion of exploration is the point. Supose there is an alien race in which only one member at a time is ever sentient - or even that there is only ever one member of the species at a time. Humans have evolved the ability to sacrifice themselves for the good of the community because we are communal beings. The survival of the gene pool is all. For a species in which the individual IS the gene pool, their psychology is going to be completely different. It's hard to imagine how such a psychology could be explored conveniently in an all-human game without resorting to the excuse mental illnesses or brain damage and the problem here is that you're not dealign with an evolved, and therefore stable persona.

Larry Niven is a fine SF author who's short stories often explore the very different, yet perfectly rational psychologies of aliens who have evolved under very different circumstances than humans. For example the Pak Protectors are super-inteligent beings, yet they are absolute slaves to their instincts because, on their homeworld, to be otherwise would doom their bloodline.


Simon Hibbs

[Green]

Facilitattion of exploration is the point. (snip) It's hard to imagine how such a psychology could be explored conveniently in an all-human game without resorting to the excuse mental illnesses or brain damage and the problem here is that you're not dealign with an evolved, and therefore stable persona.

I believe this is the main thrust of it here.  There is no shortage of psychotic people whose states of mind can mirror that of typical alien species.  After all, why roleplay an android if there are humans with Asperger's syndrome?  Aren't they the same?  Yes and no.  Yes in that their behaviors and thought processes may be similar.  No in that the experience of a person with Asperger's syndrome is that of a dysfunctional human being, not as a different sort of being altogether.

Now, if we get into creatures with even more extreme traits (extreme relative to our understanding of human experience), then the more fantastic creatures become more necessary to focus on them.  Consider everyone's favorite fantasy whipping boy: the elf.  I agree that for the most part, elves are presented as pointy-eared humans with different stat bonuses and a little blip about how living so long is such a drag.  However, let's try something a little different, shall we?

I love the idea of innately magical human-like beings whose relationship to time is, shall we say, a bit more voluntary than ours. However, I am often disappointed by how this is represented in most games. In addition, I think that too often the psychological aspect of elves is ignored or simply defaults to "humans that live a long time." It also doesn't help that magical, immortal, human-like beings often comes with a lot of additional baggage that renders the idea stale. Baggage such as having a particular reverence for nature or xenophobia.

I tend to prefer having that not be the core element of their psychology. Heck, it'd be cool if the virtual immortality thing were something that humans latch onto, rather than something that the elves themselves consider noteworthy.

HUMAN: So, unless something actually kills you, you'll life forever, right?
ELF: (Nonchalant) Yeah.
HUMAN: How do you feel about that? I mean, doesn't it make you sad, knowing that you'll outlive everybody that isn't an elf?
ELF: Can't say that it does.
HUMAN: But--- but--- it should, shouldn't it? You're practically immortal, and everything just fades and dies.
ELF: You're not making any sense. I'm going to have a beer with the dwarf.

What if, instead of immortality, it's magic that differentiates humans and elves? I don't mean magic as something you do, but something you are. Elves would essentially be humans as they often believe they want to be: beautiful, powerful, and free from certain death. In a word, magic creates elves as humans unbound by the ordinary: ordinary cares, ordinary activities, ordinary passions, and ordinary deaths. They are the yearning for wonder manifested on collective scale. Unlike human magicians, elves are innately wonderful (in the Pratchett sense).

Of course, not having to worry about "small" stuff like eating, sleeping, going to the bathroom, and so forth would have profound effects upon one's psychology. Said briefly, most elves would be psychotic by human standards.  It goes without saying that without grounding in everyday reality, it's hard to cultivate virtues like compassion, humility, and temperance. Look at how some celebrities seem to lose touch with everyday reality because they don't have to deal with it as we do. Imagine a nation of people like that.  It's not that they are incapable of empathy or self-control, but their natures are much more extreme. Their emotions are stronger and purer. They are not prone to mixed feelings and lukewarm passions. They do not have hobbies; they have obsessions. They are not merely attracted to someone; they are consumed with lust. They do not have spouses; they have soulmates. They do not experience irritation or annoyance; they feel rage.

The intensity of elven passion can be unsettling, but their dispassion is positively terrifying. When elves do not have an emotional attachment to something, they can be calloused and even cruel. This is not out of malice or a perverse joy in the suffering of others (though that does happen). Rather, it is the complete lack of empathy, the sort of cruelty that provokes a child to tear the wings off of flies, just to see what would happen.  With experience, they can modify their behavior or put situations into perspective, but that does not mean they will be especially easy to deal with.

In a roleplaying context, imagine what it would be like to have such a creature as a companion, en employer, or dependent.  Imagine the sorts of personal, interpersonal, and environmental conflict that happens when introducing a being like this to humankind.  Consider, if you will, what would happen if a young boy named Charlie discovered that his local chocolatier is not a mad genius of a man as he supposed, but a different sort of creature altogether.

[contracycle]

That's exactly what I was saying, perhaps I mis-interpreted the other point of view. I felt that people were suggesting to make up alternate races who were indistinct from humans except for one or two characteristics/caracatures (for example, the mainstream treatment of Elves, Dwarves, Klingons etc.... although I stress the word 'mainstream', as many people have explored these concepts in the above fashion before). And that's an excellent point regarding desiring to play variations on humans from the point of view to explore those facets of human thought and action by emphasising or negating them. Point made.

Actually I think that adding of colour can be counter-productive.  Becuase raising some issue about how we humans think, by the necessity of us all being humans, but then allowing it to be excepted from anthropology into biology and the dumb "well they do it cos they is dwarves" thing obviates this goal.  I think this attempt at inducing variation is precisely the point at which we are in fact talking about culture, and that therefore as soon as it relegated to biology that comparitive analysis is lost.

[simon_hibbs]

Actually I think that adding of colour can be counter-productive.  Becuase raising some issue about how we humans think, by the necessity of us all being humans, but then allowing it to be excepted from anthropology into biology and the dumb "well they do it cos they is dwarves" thing obviates this goal.

I'm not sure precisely what goal you are refering to here. The introduction of colour?

...I think this attempt at inducing variation is precisely the point at which we are in fact talking about culture, and that therefore as soon as it relegated to biology that comparitive analysis is lost.

I think several examples have stablished that some variations in behaviour and psychology cannot be explained purely in terms of culture. Also why is any comaprative analysis lost? Where did it go? I don't see any reason why we can't explore a comparative analysis of the behaviour of very different beings, and the reasons for those differences.


Simon Hibbs

[contracycle]

Well I'm not saying its totally impossible, but I am saying I think its counterproductive where a social difference is being represented as a biological one.

I've often mentioned the Kafer of 2300AD as my fave alien species because they really were alien.  They differr from us in that their flight-flight adrenaline analog did not increase physical performance but mental clarity.  So they are dumb until they in danger, and then they get very smart very quickly.  So, all Kafer computers have to be buried in heavy armour to prevent their frustrated users smacking them with a solid object to "make them smarter".

There's a proposed biological difference, and the game can examine what this means, how it would work out.  But if by contrast you establish a hive-mind-like species as a metaphor for social order, and then try to play the game to investigate that supposition, I suggest you will not be able to because like the Kafer scenario you setup precludes any examination of cultural factors: because you have already said, they are born this way.  So issues of culture have been made irrelevant.  "They do it cos they is dwarves" is the in-game reality and there is no need to question the topic further.

[Justin Marx]

Well I'm not saying its totally impossible, but I am saying I think its counterproductive where a social difference is being represented as a biological one.

I agree. I have not seen as many games get into describing alternate human cultures as much as they do alternate species. The canvas is just as large and with equal potential.

As for biological determinism vs. cultural determinism, how much actually biology has gone into describing why Dwarves like digging holes and carrying axes? This is usually based on cultural causation - because they live in caves or whatever. Why do they live in caves.... because they do. Because they're Dwarves, and that's what they do. Sometimes this is based on founding myths - created by Earth gods, but why can't these founding myths apply to humans as well? A myth is an aspect of culture. I admit Elves have been more successfully explored, primarily due to their immortality, but basically they come across in most gameplay as haughty, effeminate and as stuck-up as the French...... that's a joke, not an attack. I'm Australian, feel free to respond in kind if I have offended.

Likewise for Vulcans, Romulans, Bajorans, Trekkians in general.... how is the Vulcan's logical obsession represented as biologically induced? They are logical because, yep, they're Vulcans. In fact, they are biologically identical (I'm not a Trek expert, so perhaps I'm slightly wrong) to Romulans, until they disagreed and went their seperate ways. Does this sound like a cultural fracture to anyone else apart from me?

These examples are pertinent, because insofar as they are represented in fiction, I think they are equally represented in gameplay. Perhaps the preponderance for biological determinism stems from the dispositions of many players - I'm going out on a limb here, just an observation - but many players seem to me to be of the more scientific sort. Just as cultural stereotyping comes into play (why do the Chinese prefer rice - because they're Chinese!), so too does racial stereotyping.

Which brings me back to the beginning - if you want to explore excessive personality traits in human beings by imparting them into a different species, in most actual cases of fiction and gameplay, you could probably use an an excessive or aberrant fictional human culture. The only reason of why people do not do this is because of colour.

I am restricting my analysis to mainstream usages of races and species, which like it or not, define much of the way we think about the neccessity of these themes in play. There are a thousand of exceptions to this rule, but the fact remains - most of us play fantasy games with Elves and Dwarves and Halflings (and Oh God no.... fking Kender...). Why do we resort to these all the time? I think because they are the tropes of the genre that the roleplaying community has constructed.

[simon_hibbs]

I think this debate is devolving somewat into two camps:

The ' fantasy/SF races are unnecessery because in Game X and Setting Y they're pointless' camp.

The 'fantasy/SF races can be valid because in Game P and Setting Q they're done realy well' camp.

Of course neither arguments on it's own is very helpful, though I'd note that in practice the contributors here have had more to say than the minimalist versions of the arguments given above.

In the case of Star Trek I would like to offer in it's defence that it's never pretended to be very realistic in it's depiction of aliens. Their rubber-suited-humans nature is usualy an intentional attempt to make sure that it's easy for the audience to pick up on the moral message of the show, and see that the message is relevent to us. The show could be completely re-written as the story of a 17th century ship exploring islands in the South Pacific, and the essential story structures would map very easily. In fact Star Trek was concieved as a science fiction verison of the adventures of Horatio Hornblower and Guliver.

I do agree that Elves/dwarves/etc are often portrayed in their comm D&D-ist incarnation in a shallow and simplistic maner, but that doesn't mean that the concept of an ancient imortal race of the Fey, and the concept of a troglodytic race of impulsive Makers are inherently pointless. They have existed in north european myth since well before recorded history, and have been used inteligently and to good effect in many a tale.

Simon Hibbs

[M. J. Young]

Why would aliens have drastically different ways of thinking than humans?

The way I look at it, all human action is based on survival instincts: eating, defending, and procreating.....

Granted, I've never seen a nitrogen-based lifeform, but I really don't see how any physically-existing alien being could deviate much from this model.  Birth, survival, and death are ever-present when elements can combine and separate from whatever stimuli apply.

Of course, that's the way you look at it; but assuming arguendo that you are correct, I think two things remain.

• Aliens can be biologically different from humans in ways that impact culture.
• Even given that they are biologically similar, they could still be very different culturally due to very small biological differences.

I have previously mentioned the Bah of Bah Ke'gehn. These creatures morph from one form to the next; as they do so, they gain in understanding and have some different drives. At one point in their life cycle, they are overwhelmed with curiosity and wish to learn everything they can. If they move beyond that stage, they will become leaders caring for the community.

These creatures do not procreate in the way we do. They seem to sprout spontaneously from the grass, pass their embryonic forms as something like bushes attached to the earth, and then break off into their must vulnerable infant stage. Thus there are no biological drives to procreate, because procreation is not a factor in the biology of the adult population--it appears to be a function of the pre-born.

The only food that grows in the world is that same grass.  However, only the infants are able to consume the grass.  They spend all of their time grazing, and produce a byproduct that is food for all the adult members of the species.  Because they have this function, they are a critical link in the structure of the society, and much of the community is geared toward protecting and preserving these infants.

There are a few other biological nuances of the creatures, but these at least demonstrate that a dramatically different psychology can arise from a dramatically different biology, and yet be something comprehensible to humans and playable in a game situation.

I would take the biological/cultural question further, though, even within human bounds. Darwinian anthropologists (or at least those with which I was familiar years ago) maintain that monogamy is a female reproductive strategy, while promiscuity is a male reproductive strategy.  The rationale is that a woman puts a tremendous investment in each of her offspring, and so benefits most from securing for herself the most successful male she can and keeping him. The male, by contrast, has almost nothing invested in bringing a child to term, and so his best reproductive strategy is to mate with as many females as possible. (I'm not agreeing with this, only citing it arguendo.)

On that basis, we would expect to find some cultures in which monogamy was dominant due to strong female control of culture, some in which mating was largely unbounded due to strong male control of culture, and perhaps some in which polygamy had arisen as a compromise.  (Polyandry, on the other hand, would be contrary to both the presumed male and female strategies, and so would be rare in the extreme.)

(I am aware that this theory of monogamy as female strategy is contrary to the popular concept proclaimed by feminists, that monogamy is a male strategy for establishing ownership over women.  I disagree with both views, but mention this to avoid the argument over whether the Darwinian anthropologists are correct--it's not at issue here.)

Slight changes in biology could tip the balance, such that monogamous or promiscuous or polygamous cultures were more likely (without necessarily locking them into one as the only way). More serious changes in biology could have greater cultural impact. Marsupial females carry an infant for a very brief time internally, and then carry them in very fragile form externally. This permits them to conceive sooner, and makes the dependent pre-infant less important to the mother, as she invests considerably less in each of them and can produce more. Similarly, sea horses and some other creatures pass the preborn to the male at some stage of development, which would free the female to conceive again. That arrangement actually increases the investment the male must make in his own progeny. Either of these biological arrangements might conceivable increase the likelihood of polyandrous family units, as the female's optimal strategy might be to find several successful males and hold all of them, while the male's successful strategy might require him to invest more in the birthing and protection of his offspring.

And none of that considers the impact of three-gender systems. I don't know whether anything like a triple helix is physically possible (and I consider it unlikely from an evolutionary standpoint), and Alien Nation suggested a three-gender system in which the third was not a genetic contributor but a necessary facilitator to the mating process (something I consider unlikely both genetically and from an evolutionary standpoint, but interesting nonetheless). However, such a hypothetical three-gender system would have enormous impact on the culture of such a race.

This doesn't even begin to consider variations such as nutrition systems that perform photosynthesis and gain the necessary materials by breathing, drinking, and consuming dirt; sensory abilities that gather information we cannot and fail to gather what we consider normative; mental processes that emphasize different aspects of thought. There are innumerable ways in which a creature that is biologically different can be innately culturally different.

I do not pretend in all this that it has been handled well in most games, or that most players would handle it well. I only observe that having alien races can be a fascinating area to explore, if done well.

--M. J. Young

[LandonSuffered]

Simon_hibbs said:

I think this debate is devolving somewat into two camps:

The ' fantasy/SF races are unnecessery because in Game X and Setting Y they're pointless' camp.

The 'fantasy/SF races can be valid because in Game P and Setting Q they're done realy well' camp.

My original question in this thread had to do with game design, and if it was necessary to include specific rules for alien races (whether terrestrial fantasy or extra-).  My conclusion was, no...unless a major purpose of the game is to explore what it means to be a particular alien species.

I think some of the examples people have been recently posted (Green's elves, Contracycle's kafers, M.J. Young's Bah Ke'gehn and Newcomers) serve as examples of ideas that could be riffed into a whole game in and of themselves.  But when creating system rules for a particular life form (whether the rules are based on strange biology, extreme psychology, or the one leading to the other) it's best used in making a game specifically of that race.

Want a game where dwarves have developed small and stout because of their strange psychology of living in caves (because of the cave's association with their primitive earth god)?  Create DwarfWorld, and write pages and pages of traditions, mythology, biology, mating customs, natural enemies, etc.

Want a game where you play soft-bodied aliens forced to live in exo-skeletons who (as a result) have grown to hate all forms of upright internal skeleton organics? Create a game like Mechanoids from the alien point of view.

Want a game where a particular race of alien refugees have landed on Earth and are attempting to assimilate themselves into human society (a fantasy twist on any old tale of immigration to a new country)? Create a game based on the Alien Nation film/comic series.

I disagree that "fantay/SF races can be valid because they're done really well."  I think they are always valid as part of color/setting when called for by a particular setting.  However, I think paying special/heavy attention to them system-wise can be a waste of space in a game (even when "done well") where the main thrust is something other than exploration of a particular culture (most "adventure-type" fantasy games, for example). It's just like adding one more class or one more spell-list or one more pigeon-holed archetype...or one more way to min-max, or one more way to justify a particular behavioral style when "role-playing."

And by waste, I mean "unnecessary use," not necessarily garbage.

Conversely in any game that actually involves exploration of a particular race as part of its premise (OrkWorld, Mechanoids, Alien Nation), then there should be some heavy system rules to back-up the exploration...and these rules should have nothing to do with game "balance" when it comes to setting the alien next to the human (if humans are included at all).

[madelf]

Of the three, I see 1 as holding the most potential, but also a very high risk of going badly wrong. I've never seen a punishment mechanic being fun so I doubt the potential of 3, while 2 strikes me as the easiest to implement in an effective manner.

How about a combination of 1 and  2?

Set the races up as lists of traits (good trait & bad traits, or Advantages/Disadvantages - though I prefer more generic traits where a "good" trait can sometimes bite you in the ass and a "bad" trait might save your bacon, but to each their own). Now when someone wants an elf "package" or a dwarf "package", they buy that block of traits (assuming a point system). So, at the root, you're using a simple Advantage/Disadvantage system as a mechanic to provide whatever racial distinctions you want - physical, psychological, whatever.

This gives the added advantage of making mixed-race characters very easy, as they can simply buy traits from either package (though likely a point limit would prevent them having all the traits of both races) and making new races would also be a breeze.

Use of these traits could be "enforced" by a reward system. Use something as an advantage, to give you a bonus on roll, and that's it's own reward. But if you roleplay the trait, in a situation where doing so is not in the character's best interest, then you get a reward (Drama/Hero points, or XP bonus, or something).

This is (roughly) how I'm attempting to structure things for my game.

[Robert Bohl]

It seems to me that the original question is a concern about race-as-splat versus race-constructed-through-stats.  The original poster doesn't seem to have a problem with non-human characters, but rather with having a pre-determined wad of bennies as a mechanical widget added on to the PC.  Am I right?  If so, it seems like the real question is why do anything as splats (character class, clan, race, lodge, whatever) versus pure constructed character (Champions, Dogs in the Vineyard, etc.).

I'm not an expert at this but it seems like splats serve as the game designer's way of more firmly underlining the setting, working it into the mechanics in a way that makes setting much more integrated.  There are other ways to do this of course (make rules that underscore setting).

[Robert Bohl]

I can't seem to edit my last post, so I'll just add:  Splats are also fun.  It can be fun to take 2 (or 4, or 6) parts, stick them together, and see what you get.