D&D 5E Humans!?

[pemerton]

D&D races are not "ethnicities", they are different intelligent species altogether

I don't think concepts derived from biological science are very helpful for thinking through what are (or, at least, have their origins in) literary tropes.

Hobbits, on the other hand, are humans, at least culturally

We can be more precise than that: they're English!

I'm more and more inclining towards the view that in a LotR-inspired roleplaying game hobbits should not be included: in Tolkien's novels, they work as characters on which the narration can focus, to mediate the strangeness and wonder of Middle Earth to the reader. But in an RPG that role is redundant (as [MENTION=10021]kamikaze[/MENTION]Midget posted a way upthread); players should be immersing themselves in the wonder of Middle Earth, and the hobbits are a window onto that rather than an aspent of it.


******************************

When you HAVE to like your neighbour, because you can't move away and you're going to be stuck together for a VERY long time, conflict resolution methods become ritualised and highly ingrained.

I'm not really seeing how this is distinctively non-human. It seems pretty close to what I understand to be aspects of culture in the PNG highlands: extremely limited geographic mobility making for ritualised and ingrained conflict resolution methods.

I don't really mind the stereotypes that much to be honest. At least it's something. A far cry better to have a scottish, hard drinking dwarf than a short, hirstute human. At least the former tells the rest of the players at the table that this isn't just another human.

Unless you're living in a place full of hard-drinking Scots.

In other words, I think that particular stereotype for dwarves works betters in the context of some cultural backgrounds than others. Like your "confict resolution" example, it doesn't strike me as particularly non-human.

If we're playing a future SF RPG with those "truths" and someone comes to your table and makes an aboriginal character while everyone else makes Europeans, do you not think that it's reasonable to expect that the guy playing the aboriginal should make that come out in some fashion during play at the table?

If there is nothing distinguishing his character from the others, then why is he playing an aboriginal? What's the point?

Maybe the player is non-Euoropean, and so wants to imagine his/her PC as non-European also? Maybe the player wants to drop in the occasional lament about the devastation of the rainforests of his/her homeland?

I mean, I could flip this around: why is Europe the norm? What are the players expected to do to make their European PCs stand out as distinctively European?

Linguistic differences
dress
religion
reactions to cultural differences

Letting everyone know how human you are isn't exactly hard. The tricky part is differentiating your human from the other humans in the game. So, with humans, it becomes all about the culture.

I want to link this to your comment about the Amazonian character in the SF game.

What do the players of humans, in a typical D&D game, do to show that their humans aren't (say) inhabitants of 21st century industrial North America or Europe, but rather whatever we are actually supposed to be imagining that they are? In my experience, the usual answer is "Not that much." We have tropes of dress and technology (typically pre-modern, and most often Western or Central European). We have the odd bout of "Ye Olde Englishe". And we have some very superficial tweaks to typical political and moral outlooks (eg not worrying about the merits of democracy over monarchy; a more casual attitude towards killing and violence in general).

Why should the players of non-European human PCs, or of non-human PCs, be held to a higher standard? The elf wears green, the dwarf brown. The elf uses a bow, the dwarf an axe. The elf drinks wine, the dwarf beer. The player of the dwarf mocks the elf for being sissy (in and out of character), and the player of the elf similarly mocks the dwarf for being uncouth.

I don't really see why this sort of stuff isn't enough.

I do expect to be able to tell from your portrayal of your character that the character isn't human. I don't think that's too much to ask.

if an observer at the table could not tell that your character wasn't human just by listening to the session, then I think that the player should put a smidgeon more effort into things.

If he acts the same, dresses the same, reacts the same, and never once references his background, to the point where an observer of the game would not be able to tell that his character is different from the others, then I do consider that poor role play. Or at least somewhere that could use a lot of improvement.

I guess it depends on what you mean by "portrayal" or "referencing background".

If the PC evinces hatred of giants and is using an axe or throwing a hammer, is s/he a dwarf or a viking? At a certain point, the onus is on the other players to take an interest. How do the other players work out that my character is a man or a woman? Black, white, or some other race (in the modern sense)? I don't think the burden on the player of the non-human PC should be higher than that on any other player.

In my current 4e game, we have an elf, a dwarf, a drow, a tiefling and a deva who was formerly a human (prior to a resurrection experience at 15th level). The dwarf is an axe-and-hammer wielding fighter/cleric of Moradin. The tiefling is a dour and cynical paladin of the Raven Queen. The elf is a ranger-cleric, and the party scout/tracker, and also worships the Raven Queen. The drow is a chaos sorcerer who worships Corellon and strives to overthrow Lolth and thereby undo the sundering of the elves. The deva is an invoker/wizard who wields the Sceptre of Law and is trying to ensure that the gods will eventually triumph over the primordials.

In any given session, would an observer work out the various races of these PCs? Probably not - the drow often refers to the elf as "elf brother" (especially when wanting healing), and the player of the tiefling tends to make fun of the dwarf's stature (both in and out of character), but these may not come up every session. And the tiefling's status as a tiefling has been central to play only occasionally.

But then, what race and culture was the human who turned into a deva? His name was Malstaph Empel, and his home city was called Entekash. I always envisaged him as being West or Central Asian, but I don't know for sure that that is what the player had in mind. I don't see that that is a huge problem - he was an interesting character (and remains one in deva form) even if his racial and cultural origin was never firmly established in the course of play.

I honestly fail to see how the difference of (say) a few idiomatic phrases, and thinking about things like "I have a tail, so it might have physical effects" or "I have hooves, so walking on hard surfaces makes noise" is any meaningful kind of "acting" (more than what all RPers should do for characters that aren't siblings).

I honestly don't see how roleplaying a non-human species is any different than "getting into character" with a human from a fictional culture.

<snip>

These things also don't need to be dramatic. Really, they can and should be subtle but consistent, unless and until the underlying cultural/philosophical differences get dragged out into the open

<snip>

I don't see why non-humans are being held to some higher standard.

I agree with this.

I would add that creating realistic fictional cultures is hugely challenging. Even thinking clearly about one's own culture, or similar contemporary cultures, is pretty hard, let alone portraying them in a roleplaying game. Most RPG sourcebooks don't try and create serious fictional cultures. Nor does most of the literary source material.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

Cool @Nellisir. That's what I'm talking about. No one at your table doesn't know your character is a tie fling.

I'm still really not sure why this has to be a thing. Admittedly, it's a weaker standard than I had originally understood you to uphold--that is, characters don't have to be actively outside all human experiences and personalities--but it still seems really extreme to me.

When someone plays a character, any character, I expect the player to put in the effort to make the character rich and believable. This ranges from highly idiosyncratic/personal touches, to more general habits and traits, to linguistic and cultural behaviors, informed by any and all appropriate character elements. If a woman grew up working the forge with her father, I expect her to be muscular and calloused; probably rough and unlettered, unless there's a distinct reason otherwise; probably not following "traditional" Western standards of beauty and personal dress. If a character is a tiefling, but his heritage is easily hidden (say, horns that can be covered by a hood, hat, or turban, or a tail small enough to be hidden inside clothes), I expect that that will be part of how the character is portrayed; I expect a decent amount of dissembling and keeping secrets, and a pointed attitude (positive or negative) about controlling the way others perceive him; the character should probably have a chosen stance (for, against, or indifferent) toward the origin of his fell ancestry. There is no need to think deeply about something like, "Do dwarves lack sexuality since they have minimal sexual dimorphism? How does being hatched rather than birthed affect dragonborn psyche?" If the player wants to, they can, but that's...even calling it "giving 110%" seems insufficient. That's "wow, you really love this worldbuilding stuff don't you? Maybe you should think about DMing!"

On the flipside, it's entirely reasonable that what starts as a particular character's individual quirk transitions into a general (or at least common) trait of their race: I've played in a campaign where elves had indeterminate physical sex or possibly were functionally intersexual--but Drow were not, and this was considered part of the deep divide between the two races despite their common origin. Both things (intersexual elves and monosexual Drow) came about as a result of individual played characters. We didn't spend a great deal of time thinking about, "How would Elf personalities be different as a result?" but we did factor it into our campaigns and it played some minor but important roles in certain events. (It also meant that the Avatar Council--the demigod-like heads of the various Towers of Magic--had no active male members; the Gold Avatar of Enchantment was an elf and therefore intersexual, and the Green [Conjuration], Red [Evocation], and White [Artifice] Avatars were all female--only the long-absent Black Avatar [Necromancy] was male, and he's dead now!)

Whenever actual biological traits aren't overtly obvious or necessary, I don't think that "is an Elf" should be so dramatically front and center that no one could possibly be unaware of a given character's race at the end of a session. No more than (say) if you transcribed the words that were said, anyone should be able to tell that a particular player was a woman rather than a man or vice-versa. I expect the physiological characteristics of a character to be important now and then, and that the player be consistent about them, but I'm far more interested in the cultural stuff, and the vast majority of that is going to be just as "constructed" as real-world cultures are.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Philosophically speaking, no, you're not. Mechanically speaking, even a young and experienced PC is more powerful than most commoners. Dramatically speaking, PCs are the most important characters by virtue of being the protagonists of the story.

A level 1 PC is stronger than a commoner in exactly the same way that a level 10 character is stronger than a level 8 character - you currently have further-developed abilities, but it's nothing that anyone else couldn't achieve with a little effort.

And the concept of "protagonist" isn't one which fits well into every story; narratively speaking, PCs are important because they are our perspective characters, but that's entirely external to the reality of the game-world, and has no bearing whatsoever on anything that takes place.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

A level 1 PC is stronger than a commoner in exactly the same way that a level 10 character is stronger than a level 8 character - you currently have further-developed abilities, but it's nothing that anyone else couldn't achieve with a little effort.

But they haven't achieved it. That's my point. You have achieved it and they haven't, which is why you're better. It's a minor point, but it's objectively true.

And the concept of "protagonist" isn't one which fits well into every story; narratively speaking, PCs are important because they are our perspective characters, but that's entirely external to the reality of the game-world, and has no bearing whatsoever on anything that takes place.

Ah, but when you're playing a RPG, the only reality of the game world that matters is the one that is being perceived by our perspective characters, so I'd say that it matters quite a lot. The reality of the game world is the game itself. Saying that PCs being the protagonists is external to the reality of the game world is like saying that Huck Finn being the main character in "Huckleberry Finn" is external to the reality of Mark Twain's novel - no, it's not, the book would be dramatically different if he wasn't in it.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

Ah, but when you're playing a RPG, the only reality of the game world that matters is the one that is being perceived by our perspective characters, so I'd say that it matters quite a lot.

I wouldn't go that far. If the stuff happening off-screen doesn't jive with what we know about how stuff happens on-screen, then that can matter quite a bit to the integrity of the setting.

Nothing that takes place within the game world should rely on the fact that our PCs are PCs in order for it to happen. That same story would be taking place, even if we were not there to watch it.

 

[The Mirrorball Man]

Nothing that takes place within the game world should rely on the fact that our PCs are PCs in order for it to happen. That same story would be taking place, even if we were not there to watch it.

Ultimately, it's a philosophical question, so I don't think there's a place for a "should." I believe that a RPG world (or any fictional world) is deeply, profoundly solipsistic and you apparently believe (if I understand your point of view) that we should somehow maintain the illusion that it works like the real world and exists independantly from the literary devices that help create it.

We're straying away from the purpose of this thread, though, so I probably should shut up at this point.

 

[Herr der Qual]

The reality is what I said about the PC's being extraordinary is a line I paraphrased from the DMG it is an essential design element of D&D that the characters are unique and more powerful than most.

As for a statement of this would you have the towns people stand up and take care of their problems before you let your party arrive for the start of an adventure to save them? No, therefore they are not as strong. Would you relay news to your high level party that the tarrasque had arisen and then tell them another band of adventurers had slain it? Most likely not. For the purposes of the game the party is supposed to be a cut above

 

[The Grassy Gnoll]

In a never the twain discussion such as,this, sidelines both sides need to say, SIWOTI* and move on.
*someone is wrong on the Internet.

 

[The Crimson Binome]

The reality is what I said about the PC's being extraordinary is a line I paraphrased from the DMG it is an essential design element of D&D that the characters are unique and more powerful than most.

That seems like one of those details where your setting may vary, right alongside "magic items are common", or "the gods walk among us". That's what, page 9 of the DMG?

 

[Herr der Qual]

I was wrong, not DMG but PHB, First paragraph of the Classes chapter. Not really put in as an optional statement but rather as a description of what player characters are.