|
Leperflesh posted:The most commonly spread myth about how species are defined, is that they're solely and exclusively defined by reproductive incompatibility. This is false. You can breed for example a horse with a zebra, they're still separate species. Zebra/horse and zebra/donkey hybrids are normally sterile, and reproductive viability was part of ARB's point. non-sterile hybrids can occur ofc, but you can't use ones that are normally sterile to prove your point there
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 23:08
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
I'm aware "species" is an arbitrary label but RPGs are made up of arbitrary labels that help us define elements of the system / setting / etc. I know it's not the only element of defining a species (at least in the taxonomic sense) but it's an important element. There are a lot of avenues to debate how we classify organisms, of course. My essential point was just that if you have a bunch of people that can interbreed then it's more likely that any differences between them aren't as rigid as fantasy RPGs present. Of course, fantasy RPGs also essentially operate on different biological rules anyway - I'm reminded of early 3e adventures where it was essentially proven dragons would willingly gently caress with anything under the sun judging by the liberal use of the half-dragon template, and that's without getting into pure bizarro territory Bastards & Bloodlines supposing a gnome might gently caress a blink dog or whatever the hell went on in that book, or Pathfinder's sorcerers getting begat by seemingly every creature across the planes. Ultimately, could be that many creatures in a fantasy universe could just be a handful of platonic forms given different expressions by some divine equation that has nothing to do with proteins.
|
|
#
?
May 20, 2017 23:33
|
|
|
Worth also considering 13th Age, which to some extent gives up on the idea that "race" is supposed to be a species and makes "half-orc" and "half-elf" the result of orc or elf children born in human-influenced communities, or vice versa.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 00:47
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:Worth also considering 13th Age, which to some extent gives up on the idea that "race" is supposed to be a species and makes "half-orc" and "half-elf" the result of orc or elf children born in human-influenced communities, or vice versa. When you have people demonstrating different traits just because they've been exposed to a competing culture, well, that says something interesting about fetal development on your planet.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 00:53
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:When you have people demonstrating different traits just because they've been exposed to a competing culture, well, that says something interesting about fetal development on your planet. it is a magical metaphor for critical race theory's view of race: a construct imposed on people by the culture surrounding them.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 01:19
|
|
|
Nuns with Guns posted:Zebra/horse and zebra/donkey hybrids are normally sterile, and reproductive viability was part of ARB's point. non-sterile hybrids can occur ofc, but you can't use ones that are normally sterile to prove your point there Pizzly bears are the only hybrid that matters.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
psychopomp posted:Clade it is then. OTUs or nothing.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 05:33
|
|
|
Cassa posted:Pizzly bears are the only hybrid that matters. Isn't there evidence that grizzly/polar hybridization has been going on for centuries at least? Like the percentage genetic share could only be achieved by interbreeding on a timescale measured in multiple generations and not single incident crosses like zebra/horse or lion/tiger. There's also the fact that some hybrids are sterile one way but not the other.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:11
|
|
|
To summarize the discussion on speciation, poo poo's complicated, yo. I think next time I write up a gamebook and have the freedom to do so, I'm just gonna use the term "peoples." The elf people, the dwarf people, the orc people, etc.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:18
|
|
|
JackMann posted:To summarize the discussion on speciation, poo poo's complicated, yo. one of pillars of eternity's decent ideas was to dig up "kith", an old-fashioned synonym for people, and use it the same way gygax used "demihumans".
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:28
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:one of pillars of eternity's decent ideas was to dig up "kith", an old-fashioned synonym for people, and use it the same way gygax used "demihumans". I used to like 'kin' before the whole otherkin nonsense became more mainstream.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:38
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I used to like 'kin' before the whole otherkin nonsense became more mainstream. kin also has the problem that it's an actual word people still use, even outside of furry communities
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 06:42
|
|
|
The One Ring uses culture as opposed to race, since it differentiates things like elves from Lorien from Mirkwood elves. It even creates differences between different dorf cultures, which is nice
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 09:13
|
|
|
Cease to Hope posted:kin also has the problem that it's an actual word people still use, even outside of furry communities It's still occasionally used in the Deep South to refer to someone's immediate and extended family as a single collection. "Oh, Aunt Bob? She's one of Ronnie's kin."
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 15:31
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:When you have people demonstrating different traits just because they've been exposed to a competing culture, well, that says something interesting about fetal development on your planet. Epigenetics. Lamark wasn't completely wrong after all! But also yeah, "a wizard did it" is still a thing. The mechanism is ancillary to the point. No matter how it works in your game world or what words you use to describe it, you're on thin ice and need to tread carefully.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 17:41
|
|
|
I see the inherent problems with the term "race" (or at least enough of the problems to now be incredibly self conscious about putting it in my book), but I also feel weird calling people different species. I need to cook up some hot, quick, not-sci-fi sounding term for the difference between the 10 foot demon and the chain smoking tanuki in the party.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:08
|
|
|
In lieu of species, I've sometimes used the word "folk" which is okay.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:18
|
|
|
There's nothing wrong with just coming up with names for what they are based on culture, religion, or country of origin and just calling them by that and not having a collective name. That guy's a Tiefling, over there is a Dragonborn, this guy's a Tanuki, here's a Cat, they're all People so why bother coming up with a special name for different kinds of People when you can just call them by what they are and then refer to them as a group as Humans or People or Folk or some other synonym. Unless you're implying that Grey Elves and Orcs and Lizardmen aren't people, in which case you disgust me sir.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:27
|
|
|
Lunatic Sledge posted:I see the inherent problems with the term "race" (or at least enough of the problems to now be incredibly self conscious about putting it in my book), but I also feel weird calling people different species. I need to cook up some hot, quick, not-sci-fi sounding term for the difference between the 10 foot demon and the chain smoking tanuki in the party. For that specifically, they're different yokai. 'Type' is also fine.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 21:31
|
|
|
I'm okay with implying that elves aren't people. Dwarves, orcs, lizardmen, sure - but gently caress elves in particular. They think they're so great.Kwyndig posted:There's nothing wrong with just coming up with names for what they are based on culture, religion, or country of origin and just calling them by that and not having a collective name. That guy's a Tiefling, over there is a Dragonborn, this guy's a Tanuki, here's a Cat, they're all People so why bother coming up with a special name for different kinds of People when you can just call them by what they are and then refer to them as a group as Humans or People or Folk or some other synonym. Unless you're implying that Grey Elves and Orcs and Lizardmen aren't people, in which case you disgust me sir. What label do you put next to that field on the character sheet if you do this?
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:15
|
|
|
Nothing, because why is that even a box on your sheet if you're that uncomfortable about terms.
|
|
#
?
May 21, 2017 23:26
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:What label do you put next to that field on the character sheet if you do this? "Style"
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:14
|
|
|
Bongo Bill posted:I'm okay with implying that elves aren't people. Dwarves, orcs, lizardmen, sure - but gently caress elves in particular. They think they're so great. 'Set'
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:17
|
|
|
Crew.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:33
|
|
|
"Folk" sounds nice too.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:57
|
|
|
I'll be fair, these are all good answers if you must pick one.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 01:59
|
|
|
Kwyndig posted:I'll be fair, these are all good answers if you must pick one. Why pick one when you can pick bunches
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:05
|
|
|
"Background" is also good and allows you to sidestep genetics entirely. My dude grew up drinking with dorfs, that's why she gets +2 Con.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:29
|
|
|
I understand that this is a pretty hot issue, but what about the idea that "race" and "class" as game terms have pretty different meanings than their sociology-political meanings? I know that politics and culture tend to intersect with everything, but for something like classes within a game I definitely am not thinking about real world socioeconomic class. Race I think is a little more charged, though. What are people's thoughts on whether this is a subject that actually matters versus it being of little or no importance? I will also say that I'm a white dude and that probably colors my perspective a lot as to how important this feels, hence why I'm asking for input.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:37
|
|
|
Strike! calls it Origin and says specifically that Origin could be a species or a culture or even a class or caste depending on the setting. Edit: yeah, the game term Class has zero overlap with socioeconomic class, so it's not at all fraught in my mind. Jimbozig fucked around with this message at 02:47 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:45
|
|
|
I think the problem with replacing the traditional RPG "race" category with culture or origin is it leaves it a bit more open to weird racist stat changes basic on culture. Like outside of the amazingly laughably racist ones most RPGs don't use race to refer to different types of humans. All humans are one RPG defined race with the same or at least very similar stats. So you don't end up with say stats changing because you're from not-Europe or not-Africa. I find it a lot less uncomfortable to say that someone has an intelligence bonus because he's a giant brain bug than it is because they're from a more enlightened society.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 02:52
|
|
|
I always say "job" instead of "class" because I was raised on jrpgs rather than western (or tabletop) ones, but I also don't feel "class" is a particularly loaded term here; it's so completely divorced from its socioeconomic usage. But "race" is rougher, especially considering the history of equating fantasy groups to real world ones and using races as thinly veiled metaphors (even if unintentionally).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:16
|
|
|
Part of it is just genre and pulp fiction being loaded with a lot of crummy associations over the decades, and having that flavor RPGs in ways that we usually don't even think of. Pathfinder, for example, decided to carry over some Lovecraftian fears about miscegenation and rural folk going subhuman and things like that in their first Bestiary. And that's not that you can't ever use those ideas, but you have to be aware of the potential issues surrounding them and not just parroting genre notions blindly. I think a lot of the hangups D&D ties to race can also what leads to a lot of old-school  about gender. If being a dwarf or from Chessenta or wherever gives some mechanical shift, then gender should, right?... or so the notion easily goes. That's not to say you can't have Crane samurai get a +1 to snootiness but at the same time it can be good to think about why you're implementing that and what that means instead of just being "of course elves are different!"But at the very least, I think we can agree that mongrelmen were a mistake.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:28
|
|
|
Mongrelmen as the good natured and pitiable end result of Dr Moreau style experiments are good, mongrelmen created because "too much mixed breeding" are bad.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 03:54
|
|
|
Mongrelmen should be the common ancestor of every other humanoid species. Elves and dwarves and humans are all the weird inbred subspecies that can't really survive in the wild. I mean, hell, humans are so inbred they don't even have darkvision, the poor things!
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 05:56
|
|
|
Terrible Opinions posted:I think the problem with replacing the traditional RPG "race" category with culture or origin is it leaves it a bit more open to weird racist stat changes basic on culture. Like outside of the amazingly laughably racist ones most RPGs don't use race to refer to different types of humans. All humans are one RPG defined race with the same or at least very similar stats. So you don't end up with say stats changing because you're from not-Europe or not-Africa. I find it a lot less uncomfortable to say that someone has an intelligence bonus because he's a giant brain bug than it is because they're from a more enlightened society. Maybe dont use a game system that reduces intelligence to a single number? Or perhaps maybe dont have cultures or races modify base stats? Because really, maybe it's time to fully shuck off the legacy of D&D and let people have all the variation that people have without encoding personal ability as something determined by racial heritage. So your culture says a lot about your religious background, the languages you speak, what kinds of food you like, even the social mores and taboos you are likely to have... but nothing abou how strong or fast or smart or wise or socially adept or attractive you are. And that also means moving away from the fantasy/sci fi tropes about species who are way stronger (but more foolish) or way more agile (but frail) etc. That doesn't even mean you have to abandon the idea of numeric stats defining a character's physical and mental abilities, necessarily; just, let players select them at will (with a balancing mechanism, like point buy or whatever) in a way that suits their character concept, rather than forcing bonuses and penalties determined by race/species/culture/origin. You can even use modifiers based on background or origin... but make that personal origin (war orphan/tutored noble/space pirate/graduate student/gangster) instead of something being applied to an entire people.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 07:40
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Maybe dont use a game system that reduces intelligence to a single number? Or perhaps maybe dont have cultures or races modify base stats? Because really, maybe it's time to fully shuck off the legacy of D&D and let people have all the variation that people have without encoding personal ability as something determined by racial heritage. The Dark Eye does a pretty good job of this, for all its faults. The races all have big lists of the Advantages most Dwarves have, for instance, but they are more strong suggestions than requirements mostly. You can just not take say poison resistance to play a Dwarf with an unusual weakness for a Dwarf.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 12:04
|
|
|
Leperflesh posted:Maybe dont use a game system that reduces intelligence to a single number? This actually raises an interesting point: how do you play a genius character? Like, if you want to be Sherlock Holmes or Reed Richards, how do you accomplish that? e: I guess the answer is "it depends on the system", but I think it's an interesting problem. paradoxGentleman fucked around with this message at 18:42 on May 22, 2017 |
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:39
|
|
|
Figure out what it means in the game and give the character the means to do that. It might be represented by getting extra information from the GM, it could be bonuses to certain rolls. Figure out what's genre-appropriate. For Sherlock Holmes, he can get more information by looking over a crime scene or talking to a witness. Reed Richards can build cool gadgets (which may act as temporary powers he can switch around).
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:42
|
|
|
|
| # ? Jun 11, 2024 12:18 |
|
|
paradoxGentleman posted:This actually raisesan interesting point: how do you play a genius character? Like, if you want to be Sherlock Holmes or Reed Richards, how do you accomplish that? You need to have a GM on board who understands that they need to feed the player with information that the player probably doesn't know to ask for. There are different kinds of genius and intelligence, of course, so it really depends on the character concept: one genius might be a sherlock holmes type person who notices details that seem to others to be unimportant, intuits connections between apparently disconnected facts, etc. Another character might be brilliant at math and physics - feed that character accurate probabilities for events? A character might be a mechanics genius, who gets to build cool gadgets or constructions that work better or are cheaper or stronger etc. It's still a challenge, of course, and it's helpful if the player is at least clever enough to come up with ideas for how and where their genius character would perform well, but aside from just getting bonuses to various skills/abilities (you are super smart so you get a bonus to your Knowledge: Stuff rolls) I think you really have to have good GM support.
|
|
#
?
May 22, 2017 18:45
|
|