Sorry for starting up a new thread when I'm not really finished with replying to the Ygg thread yet, but I had this thing brought up in a recent e-mail discussion, and I felt it was sufficiently important that I ought to mail about it here on the forum straight away.

The matter pertains to fantasy rpgs in general. Ygg has the same "problem" as most other fantasy rpgs I've seen out there, so this might be interesting for Lance and others who are working on fantasy rpgs too.

Anyway, over to the actual subject of my posting:

In virtually all fantasy RPGs you sense people have wanted to "put in a new cool race/monster" to get "more varied play".

Can anyone say that they've never (at some time or another) ever looked through the monster section in some fantasy rpg thinking: "oh, they already met that and that monster, what new thing should I let them face off against today?"

It's not necessarily always like that, but the very fact that one has had that thought (in my case definately more than once) hints at some problem.

Symptoms in RPGs are an abundance of different player races and/or monsters. Why do we need them?

It's not like you sit reading Tolkien thinking: "Orcs and more orcs, oh sure they are seeing ents and occasional trolls, but when are they're gonna give me some serious variation? They are fighting the same guys all over again!"

Maybe even that short example has a little hint in it "fighting the same guys" seem to imply that every orc is the same. Traditionally with AD&D that is usually the case. You want a bigger meaner goblin? Well then you probably won't make a big mean goblin, but select a hobgoblin or something which is supposed to be a little bigger meaner version of a goblin.

But compare that to the list of types of Skaven fighters in Advanced Heroquest:

Clan Eshin Assassin, Clan Pestilens Plague Monk, Clan Pestilens Plague Censer Bearer, Clan Mors Warlord, Clan Skryre Warpweaver, Clan Skryre White Skaven Sorcerer, Skaven Champion, Skaven Sentry, Skaven Warlord, Praznagar Prince Of Agony, Skaven Nightrunner, Skaven Gutter Runner, Poisoned Wind Globadier, Warpfire Thrower Team, Jezzail Team.

Now, the main reason for having so many types in AHQ is probably that it sells more miniatures :) But that aside, doesn't it automatically make the Skaven more interesting?

Instead of meeting "a Skaven", you meet a specific type of skaven which then might be different from other types of skaven.

(You could argue that D&D was a little on this track too when they introduced their (arbitrarily made up) different-coloured dragons)

Anyway, different professions might be ok for intelligent creatures, but even non-intelligent should be varied within a sub-species, and preferably there shouldn't be any problem making up new variations on the fly.

One of the best examples where it was easy to make up new "monsters" was an old Swedish game called "Mutant" set in a post-apocalyptic setting where mutated humans and intelligent humanoid animal mutants were rediscovering the world after a great nuclear war.

In that game, a monster could easily be introduced by a formula like this:
1. Select a type of plant/animal
2. Cross it with characteristics and/or appearance of other plants/animals
3. Add mutated abilities freely

Now consider the same for an open-ended fantasy world:
1. Select any shape you want
2. Give it any abilities you want

In the latter there is no real framework to use.

If you remember Ygg setting I was playing at introducing a race "Ogres" which I intended to use as an "intelligent monster"-template for creating supernatural fiends.

But this is only trying to cure the symptoms. There is something inherited from the very early days of fantasy RPGs which has created this traditional problem.

I mean, consider the SF genre. It's not like the GM needs flip through the "monster manual" before every session thinking: "oh, what new alien race should I let the players fight tonight?"

Considering the amount of fantasy which hardly has any non-human races and/or variation in monsters it doesn't seem like it's a problem specific to the setting, but more a traditional problem of the rpgs in their way of dealing with fantasy world.

Talislanta aside, but when I see fantasy RPGs with a lot of player races I immediately feel the need to ask: "Why are there so many player races?" And the same with monsters: "Do I really need 100+ monsters?"

Another funny thing is that I remember having problems coming up with monsters for the players to fight in AD&D despite having two of the (three?) monstrous companions.

So it's a problem embedded deep in the very layout of fantasy rpgs. Can you help me unravel the problem?

P.S. Maybe this is better suited for posting in the RPG Theory forum? I guess you admins can move it if you feel it's in the wrong place.

The problem is when creatures are defined with rules that are different from the rest of the rules for a game, the idea being to make them easy to handle. This also invariably makes the creatures generic. Which means that for variance you need to use different creatures. Simply allow the GM to make up creatures by the same set of rules that are used for character generation, and this problem goes away, poof.

Also, simply reduce the number of times that players encounter "monsters". So that it's a special event with it's own special circumstances, instead of being ho-hum. This means that repeated use will not seem the same. The less you use, the longer the supply lasts.

This is all really obvious, and only D&D like games have this problem. Try playing, I dunno, Fantasy Hero, for example, or any of the zillion other fantasy games out there that got past this problem in '85, and you'll see what I mean.

Heck, even Rolemaster products figured out the rarity idea.

Mike

Mike Holmes wrote: The problem is when creatures are defined with rules that are different from the rest of the rules for a game, the idea being to make them easy to handle. This also invariably makes the creatures generic. Which means that for variance you need to use different creatures. Simply allow the GM to make up creatures by the same set of rules that are used for character generation, and this problem goes away, poof.

Also, simply reduce the number of times that players encounter "monsters". So that it's a special event with it's own special circumstances, instead of being ho-hum.

So here's a design "what if." What if the game was a fantasy setting, but somehow the players and/or characters created the races through adventuring?

Maybe the world is full of some kind of energy that feeds on the imaginations of all that live upon it and when enough people believe something said something comes into being. It would be like saying way back when people started thinking about vampires, when the legend took off enough--a threshold was met--vampires came into being. (ooh, I like this idea... maybe I should look into this a bit more - game in the making?)

Then again, you could say to the players - its fantasy, and the players create the races by deciding on the race they want to play.

Maybe characters "remember a legend about..." and said something exists in the world...

Well, those are some random ideas on the subject...

-Shane

PS: Some books that kind of (tangentially) touch upon this are Neil Gaiman's American Gods and Charles de Lint's Newford stories ( see Forests of the Heart) -> beasties and gods coming from the "Olds World" to the New due to the belief of immigrants.

One of the problems with races in typical fantasy games is that although the system likely has mechanics to model the tactical advantages and disadvantages that differentiate the races, and probably some descriptive text about their demeanors and cultures, characters of different races operate in the same context and under the same reward mechanics as the humans. And so for all their purported differences, they fail to emerge in play as substantively distinct from human characters.

A solution is to embed the races in conflicts that are specific to them. The trollbabes in Ron's unreleased game Trollbabe! are squarely in the middle of a conflict between trolls and humans that creates a context of protagonizing uncertainty around their decisionmaking and their loyalties.

Another solution would be to have different setting-based reward mechanics for different races. Rather than throwing in a race of centaurs (because they're kewl), with a traditional set of stat modifiers, have them be ecoterrorists and reward them with rank and desirable mates for driving human settlements off from the plains, fleeing into the hills. Reward your lizardmen with spiritual insight when they have near death experiences.

You'll need to put the notion of a sustainable mixed-race adventuring party to rest though.

Paul

I don't think the question is quite framed properly in order to address it. Is the question,"What is the point of so many races in fantasy?"(What value is there in different races?) or is it "What can be done with races in fantasy to make them worthwhile?"

If the question is #1, I can say two things contribute to it. First giving players kewl monsters to kill or play as(whoo-hoo, new powers!). Second is fantasy often tries to act as a metaphor for real world conflicts, and the combination of society/culture/ethnicity often falls into the new "races". Why do elves and dwarves dislike each other? Why are mutants hated in X-men? What were the Morlocks out of the Time Machine(think economic class)?

Often you find that everyone "knows" what the culture of certain races are, but humans are usually poorly developed. Instead of getting into the complexities of what fuels a cultural viewpoint, it's easy enough to say,"Orcs are orcs 'cause of their God"...which makes it wonderfully easy to slaughter them. Let's replace the word "orcs" with the word "heathens","infidels", or a racial epithet of your choice...

If the question is #2, it could prove very interesting to see what happens with truly different races and mindstates(see SF for examples), or attempts at living near different species who have vastly different needs and lifestyles than each other.

Typically 3 things have united humans in history; sex, trade, and conquest. If species cannot interbreed, the first is out of order. If they cannot communicate, the second is nullified, and, if they cannot interact(say, the spirit world to the living), then the third is also nixed. Even those three are often greater sources of conflict than unification :)

I'm not sure if this is what you're looking for PF, but perhaps if you clarified the question down to a few sentences, it could be better addressed.

Chris

I ditched "race" as an RPG concept many years ago, and I really do not think it is necessary at all. Again, I think this is a convention of Tolkienist origin, in that it exhibits the archetypal mixed party.

I see nothing to be gained by the use of "race" as a concept - games like L5R and seventh sea use political afficiliations among humans to deliver the kewl powers and identity differentiation. Blue planet offers some human mods and dolphin PC's, but I see no indication this has been properly thought through (dolphins as PC's, that is).

The races idea is addressed to excellent effect in Ron Edward's Sorceror and Sword. What follows is my own commentary, I recomend Ron's though.

Anyway, the simple answer is that the multiple races idea comes from DnD, which in turn took it from Tolkien. If you read Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser or Conan the protagonists and foes are generally all human. To the extent other races exist they are few and far between.

In Tolkien other races feature heavily in the story. DnD borrowed that idea and changed it, then lots of other games copied DnD.

None of this is necessary. In my current game, a sort of Scottish post-apocalypse fantasy, there are three races, including humans.

The good folk, essentially elves with powerful glamours and an amoral approach. The party has encountered them but fighting them would be suicidal, the good folk can create glamours which men cannot but perceive as real. They see men's thoughts as easily as we see our hands in front of us. They have the gift of foresight and know the future in detail. Fighting them is almost impossible. They are highly magical and strange. In a sense, they are more of a background feature than anything else.

The other race are troglodytes, cave dwelling folk who avoid humans. The party has not yet met any. Why? Because they avoid humans.

So, the good folk are too powerful to be foes or protagonists, the troglodytes too reclusive. What am I left with?

Humans.

Every foe in the game is human. Different political factions war and the characters pick sides and profit from the confusion. They side with humans, against humans, fight and profit from humans. They are all human themselves.

And the game is better for it. Other races are rare and strange, as they should be. You do not randomly encounter one of the good folk or a troglodyte, the very idea is ludicrous. If you meet them, it is because they want to be met. Dealing with humans as allies and foes means that it is more difficult to stereotype how they think, they think as we do for they are like us. All of this makes for a better game IMO.

What would be added by orcs, dwarves, warrior races and bad-guy races? Nothing. I would lose the political complexity, the idea that your opponent may fundamentally not be that different from you. Instead I would have a collection of cliches which could be killed without guilt because we all know they're not real anyway.

Dump 'em all. No monsters, no other races. Look to the fiction. Fahfrd and the Grey Mouser encounter the Ghouls, but not a lot else. Conan discovers elder things but no real species in the DnD sense. It's not necessary and it is cliched. Humans provide all you need.

You all come with interesting comments, but not quite what I was aiming at, so I try to reformulate the question at Chris's suggestion.


Question: Why does most fantasy RPG incorporate so many races/monsters while still in the end failing to give the feeling of surprise and discovery as one encounters other monsters/races?


My feeling is that... well let's say a game has 100 monsters... 100 monsters last on the average x adventures. 200 monsters 2x adventures, 300 monster 3x adventures. After a while the new monsters/races become ludicrous.

One obvious thing is that the monsters/races aren't fleshed out properly. With the massive amount of monsters, most games don't bother to give anything but the superficial facts of them. This too ties in with the "lack of wonder" I have a problem with in many fantasy games.

Also, I feel that having a whole new race of monsters seems like bringing out the bazooka to kill an ant.

GM: I want something different than the usual bad guys.
Solution: Find a new race of monsters to use.

Usually the first races/monsters are the best, because they are fleshed out enough to make a few different takes on the same theme, but it goes downhill from there.


So,

Question #2: What deficiency is it that fantasy RPGs try to cover up by having lots of races/monsters? There's obviously the problem with variation, but aside from the fact that the races are poorly fleshed out, is there something in the traditional fantasy adventures which prevents the adventures themselves from providing enough variation?

What do you see as a traditional fantasy adventure?

If what you mean is essentially racially motivated murder and pillage, a la traditional DnD, then many races is useful to prevent characters feeling sorry for their victims.

Many races aids objectification. When you storm the dungeon which the kobolds have made their home and are raising their children in, butcher the adults and leave the children to starve having robbed them of their few meagre possessions, you don't want to start thinking of them as people.

If they're people, what you're doing isn't all that heroic.

So, an overly fleshed out fantasy race actually mitigates against this style of play. Once they have customs, internal conflicts, beliefs, motivations, it becomes harder to kick their doors down and slaughter them.

Traditional fantasy isn't about discovery. It's about growing rich and powerful through mass killing. The source fiction contains no traditional fantasy adventures.

Why create more stuff like that? DnD and Palladium already have this covered? Why do more traditional fantasy adventure gaming? It's hardly an underserved field.

Anyway, that is my answer. Lots of races provide a variety of things to kill and rob. Changing scenery to an essentially sterile game paradigm. Fleshing them out would be counterproductive. If you want something more interesting, abandon the traditional adventures.

It's noticeable that Runequest managed to have the first really fleshed out alien race with Trollpak and that Runequest attempted (not wholly successfully) to have motivations for characters beyond looting and killing. There is no point to interesting races for traditional fantasy gaming.

why so many? variety. in my fantasy campaigns, the characters are surrounded by a living, breathing world of wildly different races and species.

d&d took its cue from numerous sources. tolkien was one. not the only one, however. consider myth. read the monster manual, and keep an eye out for giants, pegasi, chimerae, gorgons, minotaurs, and the like. consider norse mythology, greek and roman mythology, eastern legends, and the judeo-christian mythos.

as far as your game is concerned, consider the following: if your game took place in a world consisting of nothing but humans, would your players get bored with humans after fighting them day after day? i'd suggest that it depends on the level of interaction, and the relative realism of the non-player characters. if the only humans they encounter are violent, unthinking enemies, then yes -- this gets boring quickly.

in my fantasy campaigns, i try to embed the players in a world with a genuine ecology, one in which monsters don't just snort about in caves, looking for food. orcs are as varied as humans. some are tribal, and some use more advanced tools. those with catapults and steel weapons tend to enslave and exploit their more primitive brethren -- just like humans. orcish priests are proselytes, martyrs, zealots, politicians, and simple men of faith -- just like humans.

don't worry about what d&d did with dragons -- just look at the great cats of our world. lynx, tiger, lion, puma, leopard -- consider the variety, the shapes and colors, the habits and modus operandi. let examples from this world serve as a template, and your beasts will seem at once familiar and alien. this is what works for me.

Question #2: What deficiency is it that fantasy RPGs try to cover up by having lots of races/monsters? There's obviously the problem with variation, but aside from the fact that the races are poorly fleshed out, is there something in the traditional fantasy adventures which prevents the adventures themselves from providing enough variation?

the problem, as i see it, is that the rpgs have failed to take into account what myth-tellers of ancient days knew: if your fantasy world isn't real, if its inhabitants don't behave like the creatures of this world, with honest and true motive and behavior, then the fantasy becomes sterile, and the only thing you can do is pile on more mysterious and amazing monsters that get less and less interesting as the shine wears off. like a few people have already said, you can play a good fantasy game with three monsters -- just give them good motives and real aspirations. let them have goals and hopes, too, if they're sentient. that will change everything.

[.deadguy.]

deadguy wrote: d&d took its cue from numerous sources. tolkien was one. not the only one, however. consider myth. read the monster manual, and keep an eye out for giants, pegasi, chimerae, gorgons, minotaurs, and the like. consider norse mythology, greek and roman mythology, eastern legends, and the judeo-christian mythos.[.deadguy.]

deadguy wrote: the problem, as i see it, is that the rpgs have failed to take into account what myth-tellers of ancient days knew: if your fantasy world isn't real, if its inhabitants don't behave like the creatures of this world, with honest and true motive and behavior, then the fantasy becomes sterile, and the only thing you can do is pile on more mysterious and amazing monsters that get less and less interesting as the shine wears off. like a few people have already said, you can play a good fantasy game with three monsters -- just give them good motives and real aspirations. let them have goals and hopes, too, if they're sentient. that will change everything.
[.deadguy.]

In a sense it all comes down to simple laziness and short attention spans. Why create 2 fully fleshed out and well developed races when you can slap 50 together? Plus you can then blip from one race to another to another like different Skittles flavors.

Another large part of it, as was previously mentioned, is that in detailing a race and making them as complex as humanity then players may start to feel empathy for them and not want to slaughter them wholesale. If you are forced to live amongst Orcs and see how they care for and raise their children then you might be reluctant to trample them under the hooves of your warhorse.

D&D is the model which many Fantasy RPGs chose to emulate and of course D&D was translated from a "kill them all" wargame to start so the end result is many Fantasy RPGs are just complex wargames. And Games Workshop's sales figures and product lines are good evidence that wargamers like variety in their armies. (Side note: All shall fall before the power of the Skaven!)

Hi Christoffer (Pale Fire),

I think you've raised a good question, and as Max pointed out, I've addressed it already in publication. However, he didn't mention one of my off-the-cuff sentences that at least points at the larger "why" - I suggest that fantasy-RPG design, and the modern fantasy fiction that's largely based on it, are using "fantasy races" to address issues of human ethnicity and culture that are too close to home to raise directly.

I want to distinguish between true High Fantasy (MacDonald, Lewis, Eddison, Tolkien, Cabell) and the modern D&D and post-D&D games and fiction that have essentially swiped some of its elements. In the actual pre-gaming literature, nonhumans showed up in these works mainly as "otherworldly" elements - either they belonged to the fantastical world that existed just beside the "real" one, or they were leftovers from the slowly-vanishing fantastical world that is being replaced by our "real" one.

In other words, these beings were not species in the sense of badgers, oak trees, and humans. They were magical, and specifically not "available" as protagonists, especially the more elfy they were. A character like Legolas in The Lord of the Rings is half-and-half, and if anyone would actually read this character with care, they would see that he makes a very painful choice about that in the final sections of the story. Hobbits are also half-and-half, and we see Frodo go in one direction, and Sam go in the other.

All of the source literature, of this type, is like this. Again, the nonhumans are not species. They are magical elements of a magical world, which is vanishing.

After D&D and its despicable impact on fantasy fiction, everything changed. Elves and dwarves became species, with longevity and biology and so forth. Either their concrete elements made - plainly - no sense at all, or they became ever more convoluted. As the gaming-influenced fantasy fiction proliferated in the 1980s, basically, these races became the same as aliens in Star Trek - means to address topical issues without being too, too obvious about it. Arguably, elves as constructed by this subset of gaming/fiction are much like one's cool, artsy gay friend. Arguably, dwarves (ditto) are much like one's grumpy but reliable uncle. Arguably, the faux-Gandalf so common to this kind of writing is the long-lost father, returned for guidance.

Well, there's lots more to say about all this, but that's probably enough to raise cries of disbelief, so let's see what happens.

Best,
Ron

P.S. I moved this thread to RPG Theory for what I hope are obvious reasons. I really wish people would understand that "Indie Game Design" is specifically for games undergoing design and not a chit-chat room regarding elements of design. That would be theory, which is what this forum is about.

Ron has just pointed out my number one issue with fantasy. It is true, that the fantastical races are somehow otherwordly and it is in fact this part of their nature that lends them their great power. When reduced to simple character options (in the extreme, into a series of stat modifications and special abilities), they really stop being wondrous and start being mundane.

I've been thinking about this stuff somewhat and the big question for me is : how do we take such an otherworldy figure, make it a player character, and retain that sense of the mysterious?

In fact, my work on Gothic is one take on this, but really belongs to a different genre (sorry for tooting my own horn there, but it fits).

Palefire wrote:

Is it because fantasy is more about exploring new things than other types of settings or what? Why can't the next bad guy be an orc too? And the next, and the next and the next? What why does it has to be same old same old? Is it only because the monsters actually lack personal touches and are all the same monster or what?

This is so silly.

The "problem that such games are hiding" is that they are all about killing monsters. So, to make that interesting, you have to throw different monsters at the players. Otherwise it becomes dull instantly (as opposed to by the end of the night). Imagine if you were to throw the same monster at the party to fight repaeatedly. That would be hella-boring. So you introduce new and moe interesting targets to kill.

So, you have two options.

1. If what you want is less types of monsters, but the same variability in experience, you have to be able to tailor each one. So, what I am suggeting is just what you said, throw only Orcs at them, but make each orc unique. You do this by allowing the GM to customize them by giving them the tools to do so (and possibly an in depth enough discussion of the creatures to get the GMs juices flowing). This is the most important advancement to come out of D&D3E. Took them 25 years to figure it out, but at least you can finally have a 3rd level Orc, and a 5th level Orc. Hey, look at that, variation! The same goes for situation. Orcs in a cave, orcs in a field, orcs in a forest. Variation! Not interesting variation, but better than nothing.

2. The much better solution is, as I said, and many others have said now here, to do the obvious thing, and stop playing D&D, or D&D like games where the game is all about the slaughter of creatures. As soon as the game becomes about... well, anything else, you find that the only "race" you need is humans. Not to say that you can't incorporate other races, but just that they are unnecessary. Because your "problem" no longer exists.

This is why we here are all so worried about your design. In appealing to this "market" which you call standard fantasy, you are putting together a game that has as its central focus the same one that D&D has. Killin'. Which means that you'll have the same problem. And makes the "wonder" that you are looking for all but impossible. The only way out is to make something different.

Fortunately, you have as examples a healthy percentage of extant RPGs. Many games fall into the old killing monsters trap, but there are many other good examples out there of how to create conflict from other sources. I suggest that you not just read one, like your glance at InSpectres, but actually play one. Doesn't even have to be as far from your experience as InSpectres. Try playing, I dunno, Traveller sometime. A game almost as old as D&D and really old-school. Shouldn't throw you at all. Sure it has lots of alien races, but really just for kicks. You can ignore them all you want. Why? Because Traveller is not about killin things quite as much as D&D is. Especially in the adventures produced. The system is still all about killin, but they took steps forward in other ways.

Heaven forbid you actually play someting like InSpectres where there are no special rules for killin. If you did, you'd see how easy it is to avoid this "problem".

Mike

P.S. obviously this took me more than the nine minutes difference to between my and DDs post to put together. Or, rather, the similarities in our posts are coincidental. Which should say something.

I think what we're talking about here is that the races provided aren't really races as much as walking stats and xp bags. A people of any kind come with a culture, whereas the monsters come with only a psuedo-ecology, allowing them to neither exist as a culture nor as magical, mythic beings.

What is the ecology of an angel? Of a ghost? What is their cultures? Should these things have either, or should they just be? D&D took magical creatures that just exist in mythology and attempted to explain them. Now their not magical. They're just animals like everything else in D&D.

What made a gelfling magical? The rock monster from Never Ending Story? Most of everything out of Labrynth? Here the sense of wonder is maintained by not explaining everything, sometimes things just are.

What is the culture of the Bene Gesserit? The Fremen? Here you have groups that actually have cultural goals, a great source of conflict. Have you ever tried reading the Simillarion?(if you have, read the Necronomicon after, it'll make your head stop ringing :P).

What we have in traditional fantasy is a clear understanding behind cultural races and magical races and not trying to mix the two. Let's remember, fantasy=fantastic, non logical, outside the realm of reason. Go pick up Dr. Seuss books, that's fantasy right there.

Chris

Another, very old-school game to check out would be Gamma World (specifically 4th Ed.) While it uses almost exactly the same system as D&D basic for combat resolution, and most of the character information is aimed toward conflict, the game manages somehow, despite these handicaps, to be about something other than killing monsters and robots. It's possible to play it as straight kill-and-loot, but the game feels wrong that way.

Then again, perhaps it was just me... But I doubt it. Having been on an E-group devoted to the various incarnations of Gamma World, and having read the stories which other people were playing, it was rather unlike D&D, which it essentially clones. By fortunate accident, it also failed it's original premise (D&D with mutants in a post-apocalyptic future), but only to be something better.

Okay, this wasn't intended as an advertisement for a game which went out of print ages ago, but I think it applies to the point, at least in some roundabout fashion.

Or maybe I just need sleep.

I agree with Ron in every particular. I'll just add that Tolkien's work has strong race themes running through it, some of them bearing a disturbing parallel to the ideas of racial purity espoused by Hitler and that ilk. That's not to say Tolkien shared the idea of an Aryan master race or other Nazi ideology, but the Numenoreans -- though part of that otherworldly heritage that finds its final flower in Aragorn -- do bring the concept of racial hierarchies to the foreground of Lord of the Rings.

More on point to the topic, it drives me nuts to see the proliferation of the "standard" fantasy races in various and sundry DnD clones, especially in the computer games industry. I've talked to industry designers and producers who claim that the only way to get the mass market with a fantasy game is to invoke the formula of elves, dwarves, etc., because "that's what people think fantasy is." It's a circular argument, ultimately, but it continues to have tremendous power in the computer gaming world. Moreover, not a few players assert they won't play humans, period. The longing for the exotic reinforces the perceived demand for easy DnD-style race classification, while relegating poor, dull humans to the vanilla bin.

Excuse me while I go shriek and gesticulate wildly at the heavens.

Best,

Blake

Yes, D&D does have killing things as it's primary goal, but blaming all on that can't be the whole of the answer.

When I started to consider counter-examples, I thought of Robotech. I played a long great campaign in "Return of the Masters". The only foes we met were Invids. One race, a few different mechas but ultimately pretty much the same thing over and over again.
It was always, oh we find out Invids are doing this or that and we try to help people out.

"Return of the Masters" could easily be converted into a fantasy setting where the heroes are fighting some other race that has conquered their home lands.

Let's take the familiar race of Orcs.

Let's pretend the premise of the story is to fight orcs that has conquered your homeland. 50 adventures of fighting nothing but orcs. Would it not seem like "same old same old"?

Unless of course, the motifs of the orcs were not quite clear, that there was secrets you didn't know about the orcs. They were not clearly labled with "what they could do" and "what they can't do". In a way this ties into what Walt talked about "protagonizing the setting"

Maybe it's easier to see what I mean if we replace orcs with humans. Look at the old Westerns... If the indians were like europeans only they liked to kill people for no particular reason but to take their stuff, then indians would pretty soon become a boring source for stories. But if indians were those weird savages who had a thoroughly alien culture and religion, who occasionally might seem reasonable and occasionally cruel and evil - don't they make much more interesting adversaries?

I guess this is what Chris is talking about as well.

So I'd say it's not so much in what the game is about, nor is it entirely about how the race is described, but rather what is hinted at.

If you write up a forest in a game setting without making any exact drawings but providing plenty of rumours and legends about it, it's much easier to use it in adventures, isn't it?

Or maybe that's what all of you meant all a long :)

Pale Fire wrote: Can anyone say that they've never (at some time or another) ever looked through the monster section in some fantasy rpg thinking: "oh, they already met that and that monster, what new thing should I let them face off against today?"

Pale Fire wrote: Symptoms in RPGs are an abundance of different player races and/or monsters. Why do we need them?

Pale Fire wrote: So it's a problem embedded deep in the very layout of fantasy rpgs. Can you help me unravel the problem?

Pale Fire wrote:
Unless of course, the motifs of the orcs were not quite clear, that there was secrets you didn't know about the orcs. They were not clearly labled with "what they could do" and "what they can't do". In a way this ties into what Walt talked about "protagonizing the setting"

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.

But that's not exactly the point. What I'm trying to point out here is that, in U9, there is at least some minimal attempt at making certain "joe-schmoe" monsters interesting in some way. I remember at one point, I came up some stairs to rescue the mayors daughter from goblins, and heard "Must protect pretty lady" in some broken, slurred voice which I'd learned to identify as goblin, just before I saw the bugger and had to smash my axe into his skull repeatedly. I didn't have time to think about it beforehand (in 3-D, they can come up on you awfully suddenly) but when I was looking over the goblin, I had to wonder if I'd done something wrong. (Note: To my disappointment on trying it again later, it was just flavor with no substance...) Another time is the troll I'd killed various times before from a distance. One time I went up to him to see how tough he was in hand-to-hand, and he accosted me, surprising the hell out of me. I ended up bluffing my way past him instead of having to kill him.

Which, finally (I hope) brings me to the point. GMs are capable of taking even the monsters in the MM interesting and unique. We've been fighting nothing but goblins and gnolls so far, but it's not grown stale. They're different than just faceless bad guys (except in combat, in which case they are "little guys" and "big guys" {or 1 hit kills, and multi-hit kills}) The issue here (aside from those who think human foes are enough without races) is how game design can encourage this, though. Some prefer to get rid of other "races" and make the variety of humanity do for it, whereas others (like myself) happen to like the elf-dwarf-orc-etc. variations, and would prefer to protagonize the setting with them. I think though that the real solution for those who like the races, is to figure out how to protagonize the races, and make them more than just cardboard figures to knock down, or in the case of PC races, "normal people with att. mods"

Wolfen wrote:
Which, finally (I hope) brings me to the point. GMs are capable of taking even the monsters in the MM interesting and unique. We've been fighting nothing but goblins and gnolls so far, but it's not grown stale. They're different than just faceless bad guys (except in combat, in which case they are "little guys" and "big guys" {or 1 hit kills, and multi-hit kills}) The issue here (aside from those who think human foes are enough without races) is how game design can encourage this, though. Some prefer to get rid of other "races" and make the variety of humanity do for it, whereas others (like myself) happen to like the elf-dwarf-orc-etc. variations, and would prefer to protagonize the setting with them. I think though that the real solution for those who like the races, is to figure out how to protagonize the races, and make them more than just cardboard figures to knock down, or in the case of PC races, "normal people with att. mods"

Pale Fire wrote:

Wolfen wrote: Like Lance I like a variety of races so I definately want to have them. start :)

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?

Pale Fire wrote:
How can one construct a game so that it encourages the GM to make monsters into more than faceless bad guys?

Daredevil wrote:

I've been thinking about this stuff somewhat and the big question for me is: how do we take such an otherworldy figure, make it a player character, and retain that sense of the mysterious?

In fact, my work on Gothic is one take on this, but really belongs to a different genre (sorry for tooting my own horn there, but it fits).

I don't know of any way to do this effectively, except under one special condition (which coincidentally is a hallmark of Gothic characters): when the character himself doesn't know his own nature and determining it is his personal premise. The elf raised by humans in total ignorance of elvish culture, for example. Sure, this is a cliche, but unlike some conventions of "modern" fantasy, it can actually work. Also a staple of the superhero genre.

- Walt

Hey Lance,

...others (like myself) happen to like the elf-dwarf-orc-etc. variations, and would prefer to protagonize the setting with them. I think though that the real solution for those who like the races, is to figure out how to protagonize the races, and make them more than just cardboard figures to knock down, or in the case of PC races, "normal people with att. mods"

I think I know what you mean by this. I just want to point out how what you wrote might be confusing to others. Protagonize/protagonism has a very specific meaning in conversations on The Forge, a meaning that echoes what a protagonist is in a work of fiction. A protagonist is a character whose choices and actions deliver the theme of the story to the audience by providing an answer to a question of broad human interest. That question is called the Premise.

By saying that you want to "protagonize the setting," you're saying you want to somehow have the setting deal with conflict, make difficult decisions and choices, deal with antagonists, and through that author a theme that's delivered to the audience (which would have to be the players). I can't help but think all that would have the effect of deprotagonizing the player characters. You'd be telling a story to the players, and their characters would, at best, be supporting cast.

Similarly, if you protagonize nonhuman NPC's, characters who in my mind should be supporting cast (antagonists, significant foils, etc.) to the player character protagonists, you're likely to undermine the thematic significance of the actions and decisions the players take with their characters, and ultimately eclipse the protagonism of their characters with all the thematic stuff you're doing with the NPC's.

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?

Paul

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

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

Wolfen wrote: 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.

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.

Paul Czege wrote: 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?

Balbinus wrote: 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?

Pale Fire wrote: 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"?

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

xiombarq wrote: 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. ;-)

Wolfen wrote: 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.

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

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

Wolfen wrote:
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.

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.

Gordon C. Landis wrote: 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 wrote: 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.

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.

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.

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

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

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.

Contracycle wrote: Really? Why is 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".

Wolfen wrote:
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.

Um, Lance, the Mongols were cannibals. And they did, as far as anyone at the time knew, sacrifice people to dark gods that would eat your soul. And you know what? They did much worse things than that. Stuff that no orc has ever been accused of doing. Stuff you probably don't even want to know about.

Were they evil? Was hitler evil? Were the German's following orders evil? That's not a debate we can get into here. But the Mongols weren't known for being nice, in any case. Humans are capable of a wide range of behavior culturally, and nothing that I've ever seen attributed to orcs could not be attributed to a human culture. Earthdawn's Orks are very much like a band of nice Mongols.

Can you make playable alien races? I think so, personally. I'm fond of some of the better written Traveller stuff. And they can provide a different atmosphere.

I just think that the word Orc, an elvish word invented by JRR Tolkien (goblin in the human tongue) has been abused enough. Please call them something else. Even goblins (a RW French term, IIRC) is better. Just a personal thing. Orc long ago ceased to mean anything coherent, unfortunately. It just has this "D&D" connotation. Yech.

Even when ICE (the people who owned the Middle Earth license) made up their Shadow World fantasy setting, they were smart enough to at least relabel Orcs as Logroki. Rob, if you're reading this, why Orkigashilli (sp?)? I can't pronounce that, so I'll probably start calling them orcs after a while. Which is what they are, no?

If you are going to include such beings as either a player race, or as an evil race, the first thing that you have to do is have a good reason. I buy Lances reason, but I agree with Gareth, that this does nothing to add wonder to a world. So if you have wonder as a goal, you'll need something else. Wonder is Pale Fire's stated goal, and a subject of discussion in this thread.

If people do make such a race a player race, see Max's post above. Giving a single alien species only a single culture is a sure way to make them look like cardboard. In Middle Earth the immortal and closely related elves have no less than three distinct cultures that I can think of off hand. The curmudgeonly, traditional dwarves have three as well. And the cardboardy evil Orcs have four, not counting tribes. And none of these races were designed to stand up under the same sort of scrutiny as RPG playable characters. They were supposed to be about wonder. And still they at least have a semblance of depth.

Sorry, sorta rambly.

Mike

I feel this discussion is skidding on its wheels a bit.

I think the following reply to Wolfen that contracycle wrote is essential:

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.

The Sword of Truth series, addresses alot of this. There are MANY really fascinating, intense cultures clashing throughout the books and ALL of them are human. The Otherworldly types (called Twilight People by those who seek to demonize them) are rarely ever seen. They are referred to periodically but their alien otherworldlyness is made very clear.

There has long been a discussion issue in Science Fiction: is it possible to invent a truly "alien" personality? Most aliens, like fantasy races, are just human personality archetypes caricatured. That makes them "cardboard" but it also makes them interesting. Humanize them by giving them a range of human personality and behavior instead of just a single point, and they become less cardboard individually, but also less interestingly different from humanity when extrapolated into a culture. The original cardboard Klingon culture where everyone is a rabid warrior is more distinct than the more detailed Klingon culture depicted later, in which there are some more, some less warlike, political differences, factions, enlightened leaders... gosh, just like humans! [This is just restating cc's and DD's points yet again; I wrote most of this before the last few posts were added.] At the opposite extreme, it would appear that any species sufficiently alien to not have analogues in human culture would be impossible to interact with except in the ways one might interact with a completely insane human: fear it, ignore it, attempt to "cure" it, or go mad yourself trying to comprehend it.

Take any human quality or combination of qualities, crank it down to zero or up to eleven, and humans have already been there. Completely amoral and violent? Got it. So moral and pacifistic as to make one's own survival marginal? Got it. No sense of humor? Got it. Completely devoted to humor full-time? Got it. Totally rational? Got it. Totally dedicated to irrational beliefs? Got it, in spades.

Okay, so maybe my truly-alien alien can have a non-human quality. Like, say, some emotion that humans simply don't have the capacity for. Good luck describing it or figuring out how it affects your alien's behavior. "It's called Skzzt, it's aroused by certain frequencies of vibrations and it makes the alien want to spin around and eat anything it sees that's purple." How wonderfully (yawn) alien.

Maintaining a biological referent for a nonhuman culture can be appropriate purely for reasons of color. A species with the same thought processes and diverse personality range as humans, but that can fly (or can breathe underwater, or communicates telepathically, or has five sexes, or lives in trash cans and venerates the materials discarded by urban human society, etc etc) would develop colorful variations on human cultures that can be interesting to explore.

Daredevil's point about physiological differences that reflect the cultural character is good. This can also go the opposite way: the happy childlike people are actually cannibals; the flying people have a strictly regimented society with little personal freedom. This is one of the things that determines the overall flavor of a fantasy world. Does appearance reveal something's true nature, as in Middle Earth, or does it only conceal the truth, as in Dying Earth?

The most interesting hypothetical cases are when biology clashes with culture. Consider, for example, the wasp-like but intelligent creature that must reproduce by laying its eggs in human hosts which kill the host when they hatch. These are usually, and conveniently, rendered as implacably evil, treating the humans as prey (Alien) or as an enslaved race (one of the early Barsoom novels, I forget which). These creatures would be much more interesting if they developed human-like culture and morality! Imagine having to interact with them. They know it's wrong to infect a human; it's illegal in their culture (and no longer necessary for their survival, since unintelligent beasts raised for the purpose will suffice). And yet, "human-hosted" is still a secret boast of some of the oldest and wealthiest, and every one of them is genetically predisposed to be sexually aroused by the sight of a healthy hominid ("We just think you humans are so beautiful"). It's disturbing, largely because it's uncomfortably close to conflicts that exist between culture and biology within our own species

- Walt

Walt wrote:

At the opposite extreme, it would appear that any species sufficiently alien to not have analogues in human culture would be impossible to interact with except in the ways one might interact with a completely insane human: fear it, ignore it, attempt to "cure" it, or go mad yourself trying to comprehend it

Gareth -

My purely amatuer perspective - virtually NOTHING about Erectus is well-established, which allows for lots o' fun speculation . . . but yeah, that's all it is. Neanderthal, on the other hand - my impression is that the "interbreeding" notion is pretty well discredited at the moment (by genetic studies, if I remember right). Still, what little Ron has let slip about Trollbabe got me thinking about infertile Sapiens/Neanderthal crossbreeds . . . "HalfOrkworld", someone's next game project ;-)

Max -

I recognize Machen - must've read SOMETHING by him during one of my "devour books at semi-random" phases. More likely, I've read some of his stories but NOT a novel . . . thanks for the lead.

In general -

So . . . what we want is "the feeling of surprise and discovery as one encounters other monsters/races"? I'll change that last to "monsters/races/CULTURES" and say that if a problem exists, it has nothing to do with the number (or lack thereof) of "race"-choices. Most of the time, there is nothing gained (or lost, really) by making your "Orcs" (or whatever) biologically/phisiologicaly different AND culturally different rather than JUST culturally different. It's just color - some people would rather play a "Variant-Tolkienesque-Orc" raider than a "Variant-psuedo-Mongol" raider. Whether or a not a good job is done with either culture (and the play therof) is a seperate issue.

If you do want the cultural difference to trully spring from a variant biology . . . Problem 1 has already been pointed out - a really "different" biology (and the behavior it engenders) becomes incomprehensible. Problem 2 is that this is tricky stuff - what is the relationship between biology and culture? How does it work? Some folks (who might also write RPGs about summoning demons in their spare time) have full-time academic careers in this general area . . .

Gordon

Ok, did this thread drift quickly or what?

After reading the debate here between contracycle and Lance, I think I can see a pattern.

There seems to be agreement that other races either are

a) Monsters (otherworldly, hard-to-understand, creatures)

or

b) Persons (behaving mostly like humans)

In fiction we see both of these versions, and I think also a path between them.

For individuals of a species, I think a shift is possible.

Suggestion: A individual of a species can go from "monster" to "person" despite the species in general being regarded as the former.

The goblin shouting "must save the pretty lady" had in Lance's mind taken the step from just one of the same archetype to a person with actual inner goals and motivations.

Now how did this transformation occur? Through communication.

Beings communicating with the protagonists somehow will always?/might? go from monster to person.

The moment the orcs actually try to talk to the players instead of attacking them in berserker rage, that's when they're gonna be persons. Either that or the world is written so that orcs are all nice people (in other words, certified to be able to communicate with the players).

What do you think?

Ach, too many posts, too many varying ideas to attempt to respond to at once.. I'll bow out of this thread with this last point/observation. I think that Contracycle and I aren't truly disagreeing about orcs and fantasy creatures in general, just in how they are applied. I think it best that I simply state my disagreement, and step back for now, at least on this particular debate, because I have contributed majorly to the drift from it's original intent. It was fun, though, I'll say that.