On the abundance of races in Fantasy RPGs

[Walt Freitag]

As the one who opened this can of worms, let me say that with regards to the issue of misusing terminology, Paul is absolutely correct. I shouldnt'a called it "protagonizing setting," I should have used some other term that I then defined as "functionally equivalent to protagonization using the same practical means, but applied to antagonists, setting, situation, or some other meaningful story element." I might suggest "significating/designificating."

The underlying concept by any name remains valid. Moby Dick (the whale, not the novel) is not a protagonist, but having Moby Dick end up flensed for blubber on the deck of the Pequod would have destroyed the story no less than if Ahab or Ishmael had died of randomly occurring gaol fever halfway through the novel. Not doing the precise equivalent of "deprotagonizing" to Moby Dick is just as important as not deprotagonizing the protagonists. And how much worse still would it have been if Melville had equivalent-to-deprotagonized the sea itself--such as by implying that the characters were ever not entirely at its mercy, that the Premise question of whether life prevails over death or vise versa was not always up to it to answer. Letting nothing impinge on the player characters' protagonism ultimately leaves them no source of conflict and nothing meaningful to explore except their own inner demons and each other. Which is fine, if your taste runs that way, but not everyone's does, or should.

Lance has been clear and consistent all along about his main goal, which is to create a game in which all other considerations are secondary to creating the sense of wonderment that effective fantasy fiction does. He's maintained it despite waves of eloquent arguments from everyone including me urging "surely, it's more important to do X Y and Z instead."

So, I'll let him answer whether or not he really means all those things that the phrases "protagonize the setting" and "protagonize the nonhuman NPCs" technically imply. But if he does, and he does want to have NPCs make difficult thematic choices (like Galadriel, perhaps?), tell a story to the players, and eclipse the protagonization of their characters (to some extent, at least -- must this be all or nothing?), that would be fully consistent with his stated goals. (Simulationist play is under no onus to protagonize anyone or anything, and generally it does not do so. So in shifting from straight simulationist play to a variant in which setting is equivalent-to-protagonized, no one has lost anything, except the opportunity to shift to PC-protagonizing narrativist play instead.) It's not anywhere close to so unthinkable as to prove that, surely, Lance must have meant something else.

- Walt

[Paul Czege]

Simulationist play is under no onus to protagonize anyone or anything, and generally it does not do so.

You're exactly right. Point taken.

Paul

[xiombarg]

This suddenly reminds me of the Ultima series of games. I've only played in depth 2 of the 9 games in the series, these two being Ultima IV: Quest of the Avatar, and Ultima IX: Ascension. In both there is a definite focus on solve the puzzle, get the item, and fix the problem, move on to next problem, repeat. However, the emphasis on combat in the two is rather different. In Ultima IV you've your typical random encounters, where you must slay the faceless masses, with a little bit of tactical maneuvering thrown in. In Ultima IX, it's different. It's possible (though difficult) for a beginner to slay a mighty dragon, or a dreaded gazer with the right tactics. I know, I've done it. There aren't really random encounters.. Oh, sure you'll run into goblins here and there, rats and spiders all over the place, but these are mostly just filler, to keep you on your toes, and to give you something to swing at as you're running through the dungeons.

I'd like to point out, as a quick aside, that D&D3E, for the first time in the history of D&D, has mechanics to encourage this sort of thing. Every monster can have class levels now. You don't have to use "generic orcs" anymore -- orcs can have a class, and different abilities, and it's only a short step from there to different personalities as well. It's one thing to think "generic gnoll" and another thing to think of a gnoll bard with a wonder, deep, yet barbaric singing voice.

While D&D is still largely about killing stuff, one of the things I like about the new version is there is support for other things, even if it isn't used that much. Allowing a little bit of intentional drift, as it were. ;-)

[Lance D. Allen]

First off, I'd like to blame Walt for confusing me. ::grins:: Love ya.

Seriously, yes, I had a misconception about what Protagonizing meant, partially engendered by Walt's concept of Protagonizing the setting, partially by not being here when the term was coined, and lastly because I tried to figure it out for myself rather than asking. Well, now I know, and knowing is half the battle.

I'd also like to point out that I believe Walt is confusing me with Pale Fire. My game is Mage Blade, and is not set around the idea of infusing a sense of wonder. My design goals have mostly been off the boards here, and will likely stay that way for the present.

That out of the way, I'd like to address specific points. First off, I'll second the terms significating/designificating as alternatives to Protagonism/Deprotagonism when referring to setting and NPCs. They work better, and I think make it a bit more clear what is intended.

I think instead what you want to pursue is the notion of rendering setting and NPC's in such a way (as antagonists, as significant foils) that they engage the players and provoke character protagonising play from them.

Right?

Right, exactly. I've attempted to do this in the Creatures chapter of Mage Blade with the brief blarp of description on the NPC/antagonists listed there by focusing on culture and personality, rather than simply abilities. Also, I'd like to point out that "Creatures" is probably a bad name, and I am trying to think of a better, because the chapter will contain almost as many human/near-human stock NPC types as it will traditional monsters, for example "City Guard" and "Savage Orcish Warrior" (note that Orcs are a PC race in my game, not a monster race)

Quick question, why? What is it about them that makes you want to have them? Once that is clear it should be possible to do something good with them, but there is a fundamental question of why you wish them in your game.

In my Scottish game the races are there to provide magic and mystery. This is why they are powerful and reclusive. I have goals for them and those goals determined how many races I had and what they were like.

What are the goals you seek to achieve by including many races?

Quick answer, why not?

Fact is, you don't have to have a goal. It is quite possible to simply like them, and want to use them because of that. I perfectly understand the goals you are working toward in your game, and I would love to play it for a variety from elf-dwarf-orc fantasy, but I also enjoy the concept of nonhuman races, which can, if done properly, be quite unique and not just stereotypical fantasy races. I think there is a lot of backlash against using the fantasy races because D&D did it badly. Just because it has been done badly in the past does not mean that it cannot be done well.
I'll agree and join anyone in bashing D&D for it's faults, but I'll also still play it. It does many, many things badly, but it also did it first, without having the benefit of others who went before to learn from their mistakes. We point to games such as D&D and Vampire as examples of how *not* to do it, but the fact is, they broke new ground (at least in the mainstream) when they were created, and as such, had no examples to base their game off of. It only makes sense that we should be able to do better, with such examples before us.

But most importantly, is it possible to design a game so that the goblin is likely to actually say things like "must protect the pretty lady"?

Yes. First off, look at what you know about goblins. Tolkien, D&D, et al. Then decide how much of it you want to keep, and toss the rest. First off, toss the alignment. It is impossible for an entire race to be evil, just like it is impossible for an entire race to be good. People are people, no matter their culture, skin color, size, religion or diet. Unless you make them a People, they will have no uniqueness. There must be good goblins, bad goblins, and average goblins. Your average goblin is stupid, violent, and cowardly. However, there must be at least some fairly intelligent ones, who may prefer peaceful methods yet who are capable of feats of bravery when it calls for it. Or, hell.. There can even be stupid goblins which are brave, and in their own, less-than-intelligent way, noble. Make them a people, not a monster race, and you've got a good start.

Maybe even a table of character-traits for monsters would be a good start :)

::hiss!!:: No, please. Your game is about evocation of mood and imagery, yes? So here's a question... Do tables and charts evoke... either? Anything at all? I doubt it. They are a necessary tool in some instances, but they're only that; tools. Tools do not in and of themselves create imagery. Use physical, personality and cultural descriptions, and make them hint at much more. Get the GM and the players wondering, thinking. Then they'll invoke their own images and sense of wonder, as well as significating the NPC*.

It's one thing to think "generic gnoll" and another thing to think of a gnoll bard with a wonder, deep, yet barbaric singing voice.

While D&D is still largely about killing stuff, one of the things I like about the new version is there is support for other things, even if it isn't used that much. Allowing a little bit of intentional drift, as it were. ;-)

I'll concede the point that D&D does try, with this, but it doesn't encourage it's use. One thing I could see it doing better is having unusual character archetypes under the monster listings, such as that gnollish bard. All this really does as it stands is makes the orcs a little more versatile, because now they can have Fighter feats, or berserk like a human Barbarian. I think they'd do better to make the monsters using the same system that character creation uses, as I believe someone suggested earlier in this thread.

*Monsters is a bad, bad word, methinks. NPC is a much better term, as it implies personal interaction, where as Monster just implies killing. Avoid calling it a monster, and you're already making progress.

[Balbinus]

Quick answer, why not?

Fact is, you don't have to have a goal. It is quite possible to simply like them, and want to use them because of that. I perfectly understand the goals you are working toward in your game, and I would love to play it for a variety from elf-dwarf-orc fantasy, but I also enjoy the concept of nonhuman races, which can, if done properly, be quite unique and not just stereotypical fantasy races. I think there is a lot of backlash against using the fantasy races because D&D did it badly. Just because it has been done badly in the past does not mean that it cannot be done well.
I'll agree and join anyone in bashing D&D for it's faults, but I'll also still play it. It does many, many things badly, but it also did it first, without having the benefit of others who went before to learn from their mistakes. We point to games such as D&D and Vampire as examples of how *not* to do it, but the fact is, they broke new ground (at least in the mainstream) when they were created, and as such, had no examples to base their game off of. It only makes sense that we should be able to do better, with such examples before us.

One of my favourite scenes in sf film is the Cantina scene in Star Wars.  The sheer diversity, the life, the implications of how big the universe is.  So many races that you can't possibly begin to understand more than a handful of them.

That kind of diversity I love.  Achieving that though, just having lots of races because it's cool, that is still a goal.

So, calling them monsters I agree is bad.  Call them that and it's almost impossible not to think of them like that.

But, if you want diversity, lots of races, why not let players create them?  Have a simple race creation kit and let people go to town.  Give a couple of examples and then let players create their own.  Let them play members of races they make up.  True diversity.

Or, fill in just the bare bones.  The Alyydri are a tree dwelling race, fond of singing but intolerant of what they see as "clumsy" races.  That will do for a description.  When the players encounter them, fill in the rest then.  Let the race come into being and definition as the players experience it.  Until they meet them, what does it matter what they're like anyway?

[Walt Freitag]

I'd also like to point out that I believe Walt is confusing me with Pale Fire. My game is Mage Blade, and is not set around the idea of infusing a sense of wonder.

Ohmigawd, I did do that. Partly because the "protagonizing setting" thing came from Pale Fire's thread, which had me thinking of him, and partly because I'm a fucking idiot. It's not like I haven't re-read Mage Blade several times already. Sorry!

- Walt

[Gordon C. Landis]

Here's a Crackpot Theory on Dwarves and Elves (I doubt it's actually *my* crackpot theory, I'm sure I read it somewhere - but I blame it completely on Ron):

Dwarves are Neanderthals.  They were kinda like us, did a few things we humans didn't - they were in the way, and we killed 'em off.  Elves are homo erectus - they were mostly dying out by the time we ran into 'em, were even more unlike us even than Neaderthals, and any we ran into were overdue for getting killed off as well.

Elves and dwarves are in every fantasy book/game because they are part of our ancient, ancestral DNA - we once knew the "not quite human", and evolved to overwhelm them.  As far as the *way* they get into every book/game . . . different subject.  I manage to enjoy both Ron's "before D&D" fantasy and (in sufficiently low, non-repetitive doses) SOME of the more recent Epic Fantasy Series by The True Heir of Tolkien . . . so if you want (e.g.) to evoke the true "otherness" of an Elf, I understand why you'd be frustrated with the "flavor of human" approach to non-humans.  On the other hand, what's wrong with making your "variant on human culture" a pseudo-nonhuman race?

And since this seems to be the place for wandering speculation - MY barely-conceived fantasy setting has very little established beyind this core precept: the "elder race" is Man.  There are no Elves, ONLY Numenoreans.  Are they "fading?"  Hmm, maybe a premise is starting to be born . . .

Gordon

[contracycle]

Yes. First off, look at what you know about goblins. Tolkien, D&D, et al. Then decide how much of it you want to keep, and toss the rest. First off, toss the alignment. It is impossible for an entire race to be evil, just like it is impossible for an entire race to be good. People are people, no matter their culture, skin color, size, religion or diet. Unless you make them a People, they will have no uniqueness. There must be good goblins, bad goblins, and average goblins. Your average goblin is stupid, violent, and cowardly. However, there must be at least some fairly intelligent ones, who may prefer peaceful methods yet who are capable of feats of bravery when it calls for it. Or, hell.. There can even be stupid goblins which are brave, and in their own, less-than-intelligent way, noble. Make them a people, not a monster race, and you've got a good start.

No, no no.  Or more accurately, pointless pointless pointless.  You've just made them humans by doing this; their value as the mysterious, alien Other is gone.

What is the difference between "a band of raiding orcs" and, say, "a band of raiding Mongols"?  Zip, from the perspective of the raided.  D&D used a deliberate merger of culture and biology to justify its "mooks", basically - them orcs is just born bad.  But if you start equipping orcs with intellect and culture, individuality and insight, you can no longer say they were born bad.  So what have you got - just another human culture for a slightly distinct physiology.  Tolkiens orcs were weapons, not people - their intellect served their masters purpose because it had been twisted to or created for that end.  That kept them alien and other even when you could understand their thoughts - but a bunch of orcs who are just funny lookin' people is a waste of time and effort IMO.

You'd have far better success if you asked what mysterious and wondrous role you want these orcs for, and then create an explicitly human society to carry out that function.  It makes life simpler in all sorts of ways, and it means your players have an easier time investigating and identifying with its interesting elements.  Also, the variety of RW sources means you are less likely, IMO, to fall into the D&D cliche trap.

What do you want orcs for - just to be bigger and tougher?  Well, thats easy enough - theres a lot of human variety from an average 5'3" to 6'3", IIRC.  Because they are brutal and savage by comparison to the "civilised" societies?  Again, countless human examples pop up.  Either they are Monster, in which case they must be, and keep, their mystery and otherness, or they are People, with whom we can relate and discuss the meaning of life.

Orcs.  Just Say No.

[contracycle]

Hey Gordon, I'm loosely sympathetic to your argument there... "little people" living under the hill could well be a description of valley-dwelling Neanderthalensis.  And of course, stone arrow heads have been described as "elf-shot" or "fairy-shot" for some time, although I don;t know how old that tradition is.  All circumstantial, mind.

One further thought: I'm not that keen on the Erectus model... but I also think Spaiens interbred with Neanderthalensis.  In which case: the beautiful, bright shining elves might be the Neanderthalensis memory of Sapiens, carried through the oral tradition of the combined stock.  It might be a mirror seen with very old eyes.

[Balbinus]

Here's a Crackpot Theory on Dwarves and Elves (I doubt it's actually *my* crackpot theory, I'm sure I read it somewhere - but I blame it completely on Ron):

Dwarves are Neanderthals.  They were kinda like us, did a few things we humans didn't - they were in the way, and we killed 'em off.  Elves are homo erectus - they were mostly dying out by the time we ran into 'em, were even more unlike us even than Neaderthals, and any we ran into were overdue for getting killed off as well.

Elves and dwarves are in every fantasy book/game because they are part of our ancient, ancestral DNA - we once knew the "not quite human", and evolved to overwhelm them.  As far as the *way* they get into every book/game . . . different subject.  I manage to enjoy both Ron's "before D&D" fantasy and (in sufficiently low, non-repetitive doses) SOME of the more recent Epic Fantasy Series by The True Heir of Tolkien . . . so if you want (e.g.) to evoke the true "otherness" of an Elf, I understand why you'd be frustrated with the "flavor of human" approach to non-humans.  On the other hand, what's wrong with making your "variant on human culture" a pseudo-nonhuman race?

And since this seems to be the place for wandering speculation - MY barely-conceived fantasy setting has very little established beyind this core precept: the "elder race" is Man.  There are no Elves, ONLY Numenoreans.  Are they "fading?"  Hmm, maybe a premise is starting to be born . . .

Gordon

Ironically the Troglodytes in my Scottish game (mentioned above) are Neanderthals, reconstructed using past genetic techniques.  It was stuff like you say here which inspired me to introduce them.

Out of interest, have you ever read The Novel of the Black Seal by Arthur Machen, classic horror dealing with precisely these themes.

[Lance D. Allen]

No, no no. Or more accurately, pointless pointless pointless. You've just made them humans by doing this; their value as the mysterious, alien Other is gone.

Pointless only if your goal is to make mysterious, alien other-beings. Goblins and Orcs have not been, in anything I've ever read, "mysterious, alien other-beings", they have been stupid, ugly and violent foes which either kill or are killed. If you want mysterious alien other-beings, use the Fae.
Also, my goal is decidedly divergent from that. My orcs are a civilized (for the most part) race. They coexist with man, elf and dwarf (not entirely amicably, but they do.) and even take part in inter-regional politics. Drakes and dragons, on the other hand, do not. They are mysterious, alien other-beings, with the ability to trounce most foolish warriors or magi who decide to disturb them, but who may make formidable allies to those who woo them.

What is the difference between "a band of raiding orcs" and, say, "a band of raiding Mongols"? Zip, from the perspective of the raided.

I suppose it would really depend on the portrayal of the orcs, wouldn't it? Most portrayals of orcs, hell I'd rather be raided by a Mongol horde. At least I can be pretty sure the horde won't eat me, or sacrifice me to it's dark gods who will swallow my soul.

D&D used a deliberate merger of culture and biology to justify its "mooks", basically - them orcs is just born bad. But if you start equipping orcs with intellect and culture, individuality and insight, you can no longer say they were born bad.

It's amazing how you are disagreeing with me, and stating my own point precisely. The idea of "born bad" is what I think needs to go. Why have a cardboard enemy when you can have a foe who hates you and is trying to kill you for a *reason*, not just because he's "born bad".

So what have you got - just another human culture for a slightly distinct physiology.

Only, my friend, if you go the easy way and make them a human culture. Tolkien didn't, and it worked for him. I don't intend to either, for the most part (what I do make human is for a good reason, given the history of the setting.. I really will get to all of this, honest) and no one else has to make them "funny looking people" either, no more than elves or dwarves. "People" does not mean human, when fantasy or sci-fi is involved.

Either they are Monster, in which case they must be, and keep, their mystery and otherness, or they are People, with whom we can relate and discuss the meaning of life.

Again you state my points. The point I am aiming for is to take away the "Monster" aspect, and make them people. Even a culture vastly alien to our own has people, just different kinds of people.

[Balbinus]

One thing I have noticed in depictions of fantasy races and aliens both is how rarely they are internally diverse.

Frequently, humans are shown as having incredible diversity, varying personalities, while the non-humans have a central theme.  Often they even have just one culture, religion and government.

Mostly I think this is a kind of laziness.  An alien species as diverse as humans but still alien is very hard to do.

I remember in a game I ran once an alien commented on some aspect of humanity and one character said "so, do you find us chaotic and confusing then?"  assuming that as usual humans were the diverse species.  I loved having it answer with a surprised tone "no, we find you all pretty similar to be honest, you're not a complex species".  Inverting stereotypes.

That's what I'd like to see.  Not just orcs who are people but orcs who are as diverse as humanity in their cultures and outlooks, while still remaing clearly inhuman.

[contracycle]

Pointless only if your goal is to make mysterious, alien other-beings.

Yes.  As in...

Only, my friend, if you go the easy way and make them a human culture. Tolkien didn't, and it worked for him.

Making them human is NOT the easy way, it is the hard way.  If you make them so the players can relate to them, they will not be mysterious.  If they are mysterious, the players will not be able to relate to them.  There is no middle ground, IMO, between "person" and "monster".

At least I can be pretty sure the horde won't eat me, or sacrifice me to it's dark gods who will swallow my soul.

Really?  Why is that?

[Lance D. Allen]

Really? Why is that?

Because the Mongols weren't "Evil". They were people, like anyone else. Some, maybe even most, were some pretty bloodthirsty bastards, but they weren't flat, cardboard villains without any motivations or depth. IIRC, the whole Mongol horde turned around and went home to honor the death of Ghengis Khan, and his successor never fully got around to sending the hordes back out. "Evil" creatures/people don't do that.

Making them human is NOT the easy way, it is the hard way. If you make them so the players can relate to them, they will not be mysterious. If they are mysterious, the players will not be able to relate to them. There is no middle ground, IMO, between "person" and "monster".

Sorry, but I disagree, most vehemently. It's not difficult to say "Um.. Orcs are like Mongols" then go on to describe them with a Mongol flavor. To make them truly unique, to make them Orcs, not just a racial equivalent of some culture of humanity is what takes effort.
Also, you are again working *only* with the assumption that the goal is to make them mysterious. That may be the goal in some games, in which case, no they should not be made people. But we're not discussing those games. We're talking about games where people can play these races, so to make them rich enough that they can be played without the human subcultural bias, yet familiar enough that they *can* be played is the goal in these systems. We're not talking about a middle ground, here. We're talking about one side only. I don't want to make Orcs into monsters. I want to make them into people, and lose the whole monster mentality.

[contracycle]

Perhaps we are atlking at slightly cross purposes.

Because the Mongols weren't "Evil". They were people, like anyone else.

Yes.  And among people, Evil is in the eye of the beholder.

Also, you are again working *only* with the assumption that the goal is to make them mysterious. That may be the goal in some games, in which

No, I'm suggesting that making them known and understood, and making them mysterious, are opposed objectives.  If you achieve one you lose the other.

I don't want to make Orcs into monsters. I want to make them into people, and lose the whole monster mentality.

Yes, I fully understand that.  Thats waht I meant by the mongol comparison - once orcs become people, their "orcness" is not whats frightening about being raided by them, is not important.  Instead, their gods and their culture become the important things.  All I'm pointing out is that, having gone down this route, the "orcness" has devalued.  Their culture is far more important for understanding them and predicting their behaviour.  At which point, it seems to me, there is little point to retaining a biological referent; they might as well be a human culture instead.