in-game Biases.

[John Kim]

I would have thought that what elves think about dwarves would be much more appropriate to a document about elves.  

Well, I don't.  As I said, the implication from this is that whatever Elves think, it is wrong.  Suppose my PC is an elf, and I want to know what my character thinks of dwarves.  Under the organization you suggested, I should consult a section which has no informational content about dwarves.  I feel this is mildly insulting to my character.  Under the organization I suggest, I should turn to the dwarf section.  That is, my character's opinion should be formed based at least in part on the facts about dwarves.  

Now, it could be that a PC is not a critical thinker -- and he just parrots whatever he has heard for his opinion about dwarves.  However, he might also base his opinion on actual thought.  My take would be that you should assume an informed view and provide all the information, some of which the player can ignore if she decides her PC is ignorant.  

As a parallel -- I am an American.  If you wanted to know what I think of French people, I don't think you should first look up "United States culture" as an encyclopedia category.  I would say that the "France" entry is much more relevant to what I think about France.  Moreover, I would say to encyclopedia writers that the France entry should not be based solely on what the French think and say themselves -- but should also use outside views of them.

I guess this depends partly on game-world.  The more ignorant the races are of each other (perhaps having no contact), the more the alternate approach works.  Still, I would guess that the PCs are fairly cosmopolitan, though of course there will be exceptions.

If I ask the question "What do I ned to know to play an Elf", I realy want just a few documents, not a whole bunch of references to other documents that are mainly about other things. Reading 'For information on Elven attitudes to Dwarves, see the Dwarf supplement, etc, etc, etc' would not endear me to the author.  

Well, having multiple books definitely does make it tricky.  I was imagining a core rulebook which had both Elf and Dwarf information in it.  I would say that there should still be multiple viewpoints in the description of a given topic.  However, in expansion books this may change.  If race X isn't detailed at the time the core book is written, then obviously the core book can't include race X viewpoints.

[M. J. Young]

John, I think you're wrong.

I think even in cosmopolitan America, the majority of people in any racial/ethnic/social subgroup knows very little about the facts and attitudes of those outside their own group. White might, for example, know that blacks (overgeneralizing) don't like whites, and that blacks blame whites for poverty and other problems stemming from slavery. They don't, in the main, understand that in any detail. Thus what whites generally say about blacks would be properly listed in the section about whites, while the facts about what blacks think and feel about whites are descriptive not of white culture but of black culture.

That doesn't mean that nothing whites believe about blacks is true; it means that the truth is filtered by cultural lenses that limit what is generally known and believed.

To go to elves and dwarfs, we would expect these facts to be found in the description of dwarfs:
--They are mostly miners and mine dwellers.
--They cherish precious metals and gems.
--They value wood only as a tool for supporting stone structures.
--Elves, who don't understand mines, don't understand the value of these things.

In the description of elves, among the facts that describe elves, we would find:
--They love living things, particularly trees.
--They see little value in dead things, such as metals and rocks, except as tools.
--They eat the fruit of plants and trees primarily.
--They think dwarfs are cruel to trees, killing them for no good purpose.
--They think that the love dwarfs have for dead things is an abominable misunderstanding of the nature of things.
--They think there is something inherently wrong with any creature who hides from the sun and fresh air in holes in the ground.

Some of these are facts specifically about the race to whom they apply; some of these are filtered through the values of the race observing.

The attitudes of your people, as a player character, are very much relevant to who you are, and not terribly relevant to the identities of those people.

I would even suggest that in most fantasy settings, given the Tolkienesque separation of races, players should not read the facts about other races, only their own race's perceptions thereof. This would better enable each player to get into the mindset of who his character actually is, how he thinks, how he is likely to react to his companions.

I've seen too many D&D games in which player character surface elves, gnomes, humans, and dwarfs not only embrace each other but then eagerly accept the player character drow without worrying that he might be an assassin, or the hengeyokai who seems so like a werecreature. Too many players are just putting on a costume that looks like another race, and greeting the other characters as if they were just the other players in costumes at a costume party, and not as if they actually understood the cultural biases and filters with which their characters have been raised and indoctrinated for at least a score of years.

Public schools just didn't exist in Grayhawk, as far as I know.

--M. J. Young

[John Kim]

I would even suggest that in most fantasy settings, given the Tolkienesque separation of races, players should not read the facts about other races, only their own race's perceptions thereof. This would better enable each player to get into the mindset of who his character actually is, how he thinks, how he is likely to react to his companions.  

While there is something to be said for this, it seems unworkable to me.  First of all, players are going to want to read about the different races before deciding what race they want to be.  Heck, even if they know what race they want from the start, they are probably curious about the others -- and I don't consider that a bad thing.  Moreover, this will require considerable duplication of information: since you need N complete self-contained write-ups for each of N races.  

My experience is that trying to reduce the amount of information which players have rarely improves roleplaying.  Especially in a fantasy world, the player has so much less information than any reasonable character that I consider it quite a pain to cut down their information even more.  While ideally, all of the information would be tailored to exactly their character's point-of-view -- in practice you need to just provide as much information as possible and let them filter it.  

I've seen too many D&D games in which player character surface elves, gnomes, humans, and dwarfs not only embrace each other but then eagerly accept the player character drow without worrying that he might be an assassin, or the hengeyokai who seems so like a werecreature. Too many players are just putting on a costume that looks like another race, and greeting the other characters as if they were just the other players in costumes at a costume party, and not as if they actually understood the cultural biases and filters with which their characters have been raised and indoctrinated for at least a score of years.  

Well, I agree with the sentiment here -- which is exactly why I advocate my suggestion!!  Too much of roleplaying lacks decent cultural filters.  In my opinion, one reason for this is because cultural filters are handled poorly.  Because the filters are often presented as paper-thin catch-phrases and factual mistakes, players are unable to incorporate them into decent role-playing.  

To make cultural filters playable, they need to be rational and understandable -- not just a forced imposition of opinion (i.e. "elves think X").  It is true what you say that the average person is unlikely to have much knowledge of other races (i.e. Greyhawk has no public schools).  However, cultural bias is not simply ignorance.  For example, it is not true that extended contact with other races eliminates racism.  If I play an elf PC and spend time with a dwarf in the party, he can tell me about his people -- quickly giving me all of the factual information in the "Dwarf" section of the book.  If you have cast it purely as ignorance, the cultural bias should soon be eliminated.  This would be especially true if we stopped at a dwarf settlement, say, and I could see for myself.  

My point is that cultural biases are complex and deep, and I don't think they are well-served by trying to remove information from the players.  

A culture rarely views itself as flawed or evil.  It will accentuate the positive -- i.e. the culture's self-image is generally more rosy than the reality.  Those outside the culture are often better at criticizing it.  In a standard approach, a dwarf will role-play the self-image of dwarves.  Meanwhile, the elf is supposed to role-play dislike for dwarves -- but the dwarf is unlikely to role-play any of the reasons the elf has for disliking dwarves.    

In contrast, I would advocate that the role-playing needs to be on both sides.  The dwarf should be aware of the flaws which others see in his culture, and may include some truth to that in his role-playing.

[permacultureguerilla]

Outside of subject for a moment.

John wrote:
"A culture rarely views itself as flawed or evil."

This is interesting, because in my first-person (or second-person as well?) account of vampires, the narrator is somewhat giving up the information on the vampire world to us mortals because he feels guilty for the vampire race. He describes much as a rechid abomination, then puts down mortals as well. Maybe it's just a human notion to not be self derogatory. Of course, how could a species survive unless it had some "self esteem"? Well, survival might not depend on the will to gain for the race's benefit. Thirst might be so strong, it really doesn't matter. Or a society may see self-infliction toward betterment the way we might see competition toward evolution.

I guess my point is to consider a derogatory cultural bias towards itself.

Back to the subject.

I like the term "filter" for a bias. Now instead of getting something under "elves," this means you can play an elf in the game, and go completely without biases. The mechanic will simply either force you or persuade you to get a bias "filter" for a certain kind of elf.

What I mean is: Say you have seven races. That doesn't mean you need seven filters. Some races could have 3. Some could have 5, but a few are pretty closely interchangeable. Some could have a very simple one which does not change much. So a bias filter is something to put on a character sheet. You interchange biases to construct your filter, then use the filter for your character.

Hypothetical example.

A colony of elves is attacked by a dragon, and the adults must war against it. Many of them die, and suddenly a great deal of youth are orphaned with too few adults to care for them. So a local Dwarf village puts their grudges aside, and adopts many of these orphans. You play one of the orphans. There's not much point in making your character a whole different class. Your physical stats may remain the same, but now you interchange some proficiencies (axe wielding) and you get a whole new "bias filter."

Thoughts?

[Mike Holmes]

Tough call on where to place the bias section. I see both sides of this one. In certain specialized cases, I can see keeping the "factual" information from the players. But I'm going to side with John in general cases. That is, players can play without player knowledge interfering. Further, it's fine to put in biases sections with the information on the other races (in "Elves" there would be a "dwarves think this about Elves" section), and let the player determine just how much his character is cosmopolitan in outlook or provincial. In fact I think that this is a key consideration in terms of defining the character's personality.

In point of fact, the player will probably assume that information presented from their races viewpoint is slanted, and can adjust the attitude intelligently anyhow, assuming he has the desire to do so. So, given that it may happen anyhow, why not make it an informed decision?

It's interesting that saying that "All Americans hate the French because they Stereotype them" is itself a Stereotype. Characters are individuals, and some will fit the stereotype of having a certain bias. Others will not. Usually that's a player decision, and the text should follow that.

Mike

[simon_hibbs]

I would have thought that what elves think about dwarves would be much more appropriate to a document about elves.  

Well, I don't.  As I said, the implication from this is that whatever Elves think, it is wrong.  Suppose my PC is an elf, and I want to know what my character thinks of dwarves.  Under the organization you suggested, I should consult a section which has no informational content about dwarves.  

No, I think you should consult a section that says what elves know about dwarves, not a section that is primarily about what dwarves (or anyone else, for that matter) know about dwarves.

I feel this is mildly insulting to my character.  Under the organization I suggest, I should turn to the dwarf section.  That is, my character's opinion should be formed based at least in part on the facts about dwarves.  

Even if those facts are unknown to any elves? Don't you think the limitations of elf knowledge about dwarves should have any influence on how your elf thinks about them? I'd have thought it should be fundamental.

Now, it could be that a PC is not a critical thinker -- and he just parrots whatever he has heard for his opinion about dwarves.  However, he might also base his opinion on actual thought.  My take would be that you should assume an informed view and provide all the information, some of which the player can ignore if she decides her PC is ignorant.  

This seems a bizzare approach at best. It's pretty much guaranteeing that your player/character's thought proceses are going to be poluted with information and attitudes that is totaly inapropriate for your character to have.

As a parallel -- I am an American.  If you wanted to know what I think of French people, I don't think you should first look up "United States culture" as an encyclopedia category.  I would say that the "France" entry is much more relevant to what I think about France.

Assuming that your attitudes to france are typical for an american (we are talking about primary sources for cultural attitudes, after all), I'd actualy look at articles in american newspapers and magazines that mention france, or books by americans that are about france, or online discussions about france in which france is mentions. In other words, my source material would be entirely american sources. Other sources would be irrelevent to american's attitudes to france.

Moreover, I would say to encyclopedia writers that the France entry should not be based solely on what the French think and say themselves -- but should also use outside views of them.

How many americans base their attitudes to france on encyclopedia entries? How many encyclopedias have entries under 'cheese eating surrender monkey' or 'freedom fries'? Not many.

I guess this depends partly on game-world.  The more ignorant the races are of each other (perhaps having no contact), the more the alternate approach works.  Still, I would guess that the PCs are fairly cosmopolitan, though of course there will be exceptions.

If the PCs are cosmopolitan, then as a player you could choose to read the primary source material on other races and cultures, which is still out there and available. However if the only source material for elvish attitudes to dwarves assumes that the elves in question are unusualy cosmopolitan, it's going to be useless when trying to determine what typical elvish attitudes are. Suppose I'm the Gm and I want to portray a reactionary Elf character. If all the source material presents a cosmopolitan view, I'm going to find that inordinately hard. Surely it would be better to present a typical view, and then allow extrapolations from that.


Simon Hibbs

[simon_hibbs]

While there is something to be said for this, it seems unworkable to me.  First of all, players are going to want to read about the different races before deciding what race they want to be.

I think that's true, but since the elf section will surely contain material on elf attitudes to nature, politics, magic, food, personal hygine, etc it seems very odd to move the section on their attitudes to other races and peoples into a dozen different sections and away from the other maertial on  attitudes to everything else. It means if I want to play an elf I have no choice but to read at least parts of the section on dwarves, and trolls, and ducks, and etc, etc to be able to do so. A bizzare game design decision. If all the information on elf attitudes was in the elf section my life would be a lot easier, but the objective information on other cultures would still be out there if I wanted that too.

My experience is that trying to reduce the amount of information which players have rarely improves roleplaying.  

Who said anything about reducing the amount of information? I've no idea where this came from.

Especially in a fantasy world, the player has so much less information than any reasonable character that I consider it quite a pain to cut down their information even more.  While ideally, all of the information would be tailored to exactly their character's point-of-view -- in practice you need to just provide as much information as possible and let them filter it.  

Hang on, surely by saying that filtered information should not be presented, you're the one advocating reducing the ammount of avilable information.

Well, I agree with the sentiment here -- which is exactly why I advocate my suggestion!!  Too much of roleplaying lacks decent cultural filters.  In my opinion, one reason for this is because cultural filters are handled poorly.  Because the filters are often presented as paper-thin catch-phrases and factual mistakes, players are unable to incorporate them into decent role-playing.

I don't see why. If many elves mistakenly think that all dwarf are men (because the women actualy have beards - unknown to most elves), surely it's useful to know that? The fact is that racial and cultural stereotypes often realy are based on paper-thin catch-phrases and factual mistakes. How could anyone claim to have any grasp whatsoever of typical american attitudes to the french without knowing the phrases 'surrender monkey' or 'freedom fries', those well-known encyclopedia terms (not)?

My point is that cultural biases are complex and deep, and I don't think they are well-served by trying to remove information from the players.  

What information, precisely, do you think we're trying to remove?

In contrast, I would advocate that the role-playing needs to be on both sides.  The dwarf should be aware of the flaws which others see in his culture, and may include some truth to that in his role-playing.

If it is true, then yes, but if it realy is just factual error why should he?


Simon Hibbs

[John Kim]

Especially in a fantasy world, the player has so much less information than any reasonable character that I consider it quite a pain to cut down their information even more.  While ideally, all of the information would be tailored to exactly their character's point-of-view -- in practice you need to just provide as much information as possible and let them filter it.  

Hang on, surely by saying that filtered information should not be presented, you're the one advocating reducing the ammount of avilable information.

First of all, I am not saying that filtered information should not be presented.  I am saying that it is impractical to present a complete world-view separately for each culture.  For example, there is much in common between humans, elf, hobbit, and even dwarvish understanding of dwarves.  i.e. Their height and appearance, their love of stone and metal, perhaps major events of history, and so forth.  It would be impractical to repeat all commonly-known information about dwarves under the elf, human, hobbit, and dwarf sections.  

Instead, I would say that the dwarf section should first present the common information which is generally known.  Then it should separately present the biased views: i.e. how elves view dwarves, how humans view dwarves, how hobbits views dwarves, and how dwarves view themselves.  Note that all of these are biased, including the dwarvish view.  [/quote]

Well, I agree with the sentiment here -- which is exactly why I advocate my suggestion!!  Too much of roleplaying lacks decent cultural filters.  In my opinion, one reason for this is because cultural filters are handled poorly.  Because the filters are often presented as paper-thin catch-phrases and factual mistakes, players are unable to incorporate them into decent role-playing.

I don't see why. If many elves mistakenly think that all dwarf are men (because the women actualy have beards - unknown to most elves), surely it's useful to know that? The fact is that racial and cultural stereotypes often realy are based on paper-thin catch-phrases and factual mistakes. How could anyone claim to have any grasp whatsoever of typical american attitudes to the french without knowing the phrases 'surrender monkey' or 'freedom fries', those well-known encyclopedia terms (not)?

Actually, knowing those catch-phrases conveys extremely little information, in my opinion.  You can have a great understanding of the attitudes without knowing those phrases.  I think it is much more relevant to provide the history of WWII -- how France appeased Hitler while he built up his war machine and even invaded neighboring countries.  Plus of course the recent disagreement over Iraq.  You can add in a grab-bag of other common information: Napoleon, the French intellectuals' support of Stalin, and the popularity of Jerry Lewis, say.