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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Jason Aaron wrote: This is my first post at the Forge....

when you wrote: This book I think will help anyone trying to create alien species (not races, species)....

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

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

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

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

Hi Jason,

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Any thoughts?

Chris

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

what Jason Aaron wrote: to create alien species (not races, species)

Gareth first wrote:

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

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

Matt Wilson, who wrote: Purists? What does that mean?

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

M.J.:

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

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

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

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

Hi Jason,

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

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

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

Chris

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

Hi Matt,

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

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

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

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

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

Jason-

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

Jason Aaron wrote: I am specifically looking for games that hit two main points:

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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