Worlds of Design: Same Humanoids, Different Forehead

Fantasy role-playing games, like the Star Trek television series, can sometimes suffer from a lack of differentiation between humanoid species with only slight tweaks to their appearance.

Picture courtesy of Pixabay.​

From Go to Risk​

Fantasy role-playing games can suffer from a plague of the notion that everyone must be the same. Humanoid species—dwarves, elves, halflings, etc.—are often just funny-looking humans. Alignment becomes a convenience, not a governor of behavior.

Consider games that have no differentiation. All pieces in the game Go are the same and can do the same thing. That’s true in Checkers as well until a piece is Crowned. And all the pieces in Risk are armies (excepting the cards). Yet Go and Checkers are completely abstract games; and Risk is about as abstract as you can find in something that is usually called a war game. One defining feature of abstract games is that they have no story (though they do have a narrative whenever they’re played). They are an opposite of role-playing games, which have a story whether it’s written by the GM or the players (or both).

Differences become more and more important as we move down the spectrum from grand strategic to tactical games and as we move to broader models. Role-playing games like Dungeons & Dragons are not only very tactical games in combat (“skirmish games”), they’re usually meant to model a life we think could exist, though it does not, just as most novels model something we think could happen, in certain circumstances (the setting). As such RPGs encompass far more than an abstract or grand strategic game ever could.

The same applies to RPG species. The appeal of RPGs is that species are not the same, dragons are not like goblins, who are not like hellhounds or even hobgoblins, one species of aliens is not like another and not like humans, and so on. Having species that are different, even if they are humanoid, is a shorthand means of giving players an easy means of creating a character.

Same Actors, Different Makeup​

When it comes to humanoids, species differentiation doesn’t necessarily mean statistical bonuses. From a game design perspective, designers generally want sufficient differentiation to give players an opportunity to implement their strategies. (I’m not talking about parallel competitions, where players follow several “paths to victory” determined by the designer; players are then implementing the designer’s strategies, not their own: puzzles for practical purposes.) At the same time games should be as simple as possible, whereas puzzle-games may be more complex to make the puzzle harder to solve.

If statistics alone don’t differentiate species, then the onus shifts to the game master to make them culturally more nuanced. This goes beyond characters to include non-player characters. Monsters, for example, are more interesting when they’re not close copies of one another. Keep in mind, an objective for a game designer is to surprise the players. Greater differentiation helps do that, conformity does not.

On the other hand, one way to achieve simplicity is to limit differentiation. Every difference can be an exception to other rules, and exceptions are the antithesis of simplicity.

Differentiation Through Alignment​

Alignment-tendencies are another means of differentiating species. Alignment is a way to reflect religion without specifying real-world gods, but even more it's a way to steer people away from the default of "Chaotic Neutral jerk who can do whatever he/she/it wants.” (See "Chaotic Neutral is the Worst") Removing alignment tendencies removes a useful GM tool, and a way of quickly differentiating one character from another.

Keep in mind, any game is an artificial collection of constraints intended to provide challenges for player(s). Alignment is a useful constraint, and a simple one. On the other hand, as tabletop games move towards more a story-oriented and player focus, species constraints like attribute modifiers and alignment may feel restrictive.

Removing these built-in designs changes the game so that the shorthand of a particularly species is much more nuanced … but that means the game master will need to do more work to ensure elves aren’t just humans with pointy ears.

Your Turn: How do you differentiate fantasy species in your game?

 

[Micah Sweet]

Role-playing is playing a role you decide for your character, not just playing a racial stereotype that somebody else came up with.

I have no interest in racial mechanics that emphasize cosmetic differences over something that actually matters. If we can't do ASIs, and we cant have cultures that aren't available to everybody, then there just isn't enough difference in the current rules to make nonhumans actually nonhuman.

 

[Faolyn]

Yep. If I chose to play a human, I chose to play a flightless species. Should I be able to just choose for my human to have wings because PCs are special and aarakocra have wings?

Aarakocra are more or less balanced around their flight. How are you going to balance human with wings?

 

[Crimson Longinus]

Aarakocra are more or less balanced around their flight. How are you going to balance human with wings?

Switch the variant human feat for them? That's really wasn't the point though.

 

[Faolyn]

I have no interest in racial mechanics that emphasize cosmetic differences over something that actually matters. If we can't do ASIs, and we cant have cultures that aren't available to everybody, then there just isn't enough difference in the current rules to make nonhumans actually nonhuman.

So all those traits that each race has that differentiates them from every other race: meaningless.

All that cultural information that each race has--and for some races, this includes literal books worth of information that have been written over the past five editions: meaningless.

A +2/+1 bonus that only means something in terms of how well you hit something or how high your save DC is: the most important thing ever.

Wow.

Also, I'm honestly confused. How do you tell the difference between a sea elf and a goblin, since they both have +2 Dex, +1 Con? Or between a dracon dragonborn and a rock gnome, since they both have +2 Int, +1 Cha? Or a loxodon, a lizardfolk, a water genasi, or a hill dwarf, since they all have +2 Con, +1?

Or are you actually saying you literally don't know how to play an 8-foot-tall creature with innate spellcasting that allows them to detect magic and disguise themselves as someone up to three feet shorter, that can turn invisible, that can communicate with plants and animals, and counts as one size larger for carrying purposes, unless you also know that you get +2 Wis and +1 Str?

 

[Faolyn]

Switch the variant human feat for them? That's really wasn't the point though.

Is there a "winged" feat?

The point is, there's a big difference between a racial trait--such as flight--and a racial ASI. Especially since every race has the same maximums anyway, unless you homebrew something else, and the only difference is that some people get to that maximum earlier than others.

 

[Micah Sweet]

So all those traits that each race has that differentiates them from every other race: meaningless.

All that cultural information that each race has--and for some races, this includes literal books worth of information that have been written over the past five editions: meaningless.

A +2/+1 bonus that only means something in terms of how well you hit something or how high your save DC is: the most important thing ever.

Wow.

Also, I'm honestly confused. How do you tell the difference between a sea elf and a goblin, since they both have +2 Dex, +1 Con? Or between a dracon dragonborn and a rock gnome, since they both have +2 Int, +1 Cha? Or a loxodon, a lizardfolk, a water genasi, or a hill dwarf, since they all have +2 Con, +1?

Or are you actually saying you literally don't know how to play an 8-foot-tall creature with innate spellcasting that allows them to detect magic and disguise themselves as someone up to three feet shorter, that can turn invisible, that can communicate with plants and animals, and counts as one size larger for carrying purposes, unless you also know that you get +2 Wis and +1 Str?

I used to play them based primarily on cultural differences, like Star Trek races, and established literary archetypes. But we're no longer allowed to show distinct cultural traits for our races (since everyone can be anything), so archetypes no longer have any mechanical weight. The core rules, if presented to account for these modern desires, should by all rights be a beige muddle of pointy-eared humans with funny names.

 

[Faolyn]

I used to play them based primarily on cultural differences, like Star Trek races, and established literary archetypes. But we're no longer allowed to show distinct cultural traits for our races (since everyone can be anything),

"Everyone can be anything" has been the rule since 3rd edition. Y'know, when they got rid of race/class limitations and put limits on how high nonhumans could get in a class. Are you hoping those will come back?

And this is just stupid. You can play a "typical" elf if you want to. There is absolutely nothing stopping you. You're just upset that not everyone wants to play the exact same thing you do.

so archetypes no longer have any mechanical weight.

Really? Wood elves are built around dex-based roles, with their proficiency in bows, high movement speed, and ability to hide well. They're made to be snipers who fire a bow, run away super-fast, and then melt into the shadows. (The wood elf role is assassin, right?)

The core rules, if presented to account for these modern desires, should by all rights be a beige muddle of pointy-eared humans with funny names.

So basically, anyone who isn't playing the way you prefer is playing wrong.

You never answered my questions, BTW: why aren't the traits and culture information useful for you where the +2/+1 is, and how do you tell the difference between races with identical ASIs, and how do you roleplay them differently?

 

[Professor Murder]

"We are no longer allowed"
Its your game. Do what you and your playgroup are comfortable with.
What you mean is, everyone else now has more options. That what you want isn't being directly catered to.
You haven't lost anything. You have gained things.
Not everything is for you or about you.
Get over framing all experiences around your own.

 

[Micah Sweet]

"Everyone can be anything" has been the rule since 3rd edition. Y'know, when they got rid of race/class limitations and put limits on how high nonhumans could get in a class. Are you hoping those will come back?

And this is just stupid. You can play a "typical" elf if you want to. There is absolutely nothing stopping you. You're just upset that not everyone wants to play the exact same thing you do.


Really? Wood elves are built around dex-based roles, with their proficiency in bows, high movement speed, and ability to hide well. They're made to be snipers who fire a bow, run away super-fast, and then melt into the shadows. (The wood elf role is assassin, right?)


So basically, anyone who isn't playing the way you prefer is playing wrong.

You never answered my questions, BTW: why aren't the traits and culture information useful for you where the +2/+1 is, and how do you tell the difference between races with identical ASIs, and how do you roleplay them differently?

I admit I am overstating my case. Of course I can play the way I want. But there is a desire to remove aspects of the rules (like ASIs and mechanically supported cultural racial traits) that support archetypes. I like those things, and I'm unhappy to see them go. Everyone else can do what they want.

 

[MGibster]

I used to play them based primarily on cultural differences, like Star Trek races, and established literary archetypes. But we're no longer allowed to show distinct cultural traits for our races (since everyone can be anything), so archetypes no longer have any mechanical weight. The core rules, if presented to account for these modern desires, should by all rights be a beige muddle of pointy-eared humans with funny names.

I don't think there's much of a problem with showing distinct "cultural" traits for our races it's just that a lot of people don't think PCs need necessarily be beholden to them. And I would agree with that. In Legend of the Five Rings, humans are the only race you can pick from but you have various clans and each one has their own particular traits. The game encourages you to play against type if that's what you want to do. The example the Scorpion clan are known for their duplicity but a player in one of my campaigns had a Scorpion who was a straight shooter with a bad habit of being truthful and honorable.