Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Next
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
Twitch
YouTube
Facebook (EN Publishing)
Facebook (EN World)
Twitter
Instagram
TikTok
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: More Human Than Human
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="lewpuls" data-source="post: 7903433" data-attributes="member: 30518"><p>We take having many playable species in fantasy role-playing games for granted. For example, 30-some years ago I wrote an article "<a href="http://jasonzavoda-hallofthemountainking.blogspot.com/2016/05/white-dwarf-17-my-life-as-werebear.html" target="_blank">My Life as a Werebear</a>" (in <em>White Dwarf #17</em>) that provided rules for player character monster species such as blink dog packs and giants.</p><p></p><p style="text-align: center">[ATTACH=full]117830[/ATTACH]</p> <p style="text-align: center"><a href="https://pixabay.com/photos/fantasy-fairy-tales-sage-landscape-4634079/" target="_blank">Picture courtesy of Pixabay</a>.</p><p></p><p><strong>“Race” vs. “Species”</strong></p><p></p><p>D&D rules uses the term “race” the way I would use “species”—nomenclature that is particularly present in the dominance of the “human race” in AD&D, as M.T. Black quoted Gary Gygax in <strong><a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/dragon-reflections-29.669294/" target="_blank">Dragon Reflections #29</a></strong>. This is beginning to change; <a href="https://www.enworld.org/threads/do-we-still-need-race-in-d-d.665287/page-55" target="_blank"><strong>Pathfinder 2E</strong> now uses ancestries” instead of race</a>. For the purposes of this article I’m using the term “species.” There are several reasons for multiple species in fantasy role-playing games:</p><ul> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Variety</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Role-Playing Opportunities</li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Increase Gameplay Depth </li> <li data-xf-list-type="ul">Tactical Advantages</li> </ul><p><strong>Variety</strong></p><p></p><p>When the game is not skill-based, playable species help provide variety. Variety is obviously desirable in games because players have more ways to enjoy the play. That variety can come from different character classes, different skills, or different species, among many other things.</p><p></p><p>Many game players nowadays favor variety over depth—depth requires more thinking, and not everyone wants to think for their entertainment. In other game fields, you may have seen board games that have "character cards" to achieve something like different kinds of playable creatures/people. Video games often have a few different playable characters.</p><p></p><p><strong>Role-Playing Opportunities</strong></p><p></p><p>Many players will play a dwarf quite differently from how they play a human, and as playable species become more exotic the differences can be more exaggerated. I think a designer wants to have more or less familiar species before they start adding their own creations, as many players will play the familiar species but not the unfamiliar ones.</p><p></p><p><strong>Increased Gameplay Depth</strong></p><p></p><p>Gameplay depth involves the number and importance of decisions in a game. As each species has different capabilities, you add to the possible depth of the game. A game can be relatively simple and still have lots of gameplay depth. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to cope with variety in a game, but to play a deep game well requires a lot of thought. While variety has been displacing gameplay depth in board games for quite some time, it still can exist in long board games if not in the short ones popular today. Same for RPGs.</p><p></p><p><strong>Tactical Advantages</strong></p><p></p><p>Species with different capabilities can alter tactics. For example, even in games where you can hit your own people with an arrow shot into melee, you can pretty safely fire over the head of a dwarf if you stand immediately behind (and you're not another very short character).</p><p></p><p>I recall playing with what we called the "elf army," that is, an adventuring party made up entirely of elves. We also had a "dwarf army" but that was less flexible because dwarves were not "magic users," though they had clerics. I remember playing in an all-human party that had no magic users, but without the extra benefits of being dwarves that was quite nerve-racking.</p><p></p><p><strong>The Downside to So Many Species</strong></p><p></p><p>Some rulesets try to use restrictions on species to balance their advantages. Unfortunately, players and GMs tend to drop the restrictions, leading to a form of power creep that in turn leads to newly developed species being more powerful than the traditional ones.</p><p></p><p>Species proliferation and a player's search to find one that's "good at everything" is a disadvantage of having lots of species. This variety also can lead to unbelievable variance in party composition that wouldn’t be found in most homogeneous fantasy cultures—although it strains credibility, this doesn’t usually bother players.</p><p></p><p>All these extra rules can make life harder for the GM and even the players. Wise GMs will limit the species available to the players rather than accept anything that's published.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="lewpuls, post: 7903433, member: 30518"] We take having many playable species in fantasy role-playing games for granted. For example, 30-some years ago I wrote an article "[URL='http://jasonzavoda-hallofthemountainking.blogspot.com/2016/05/white-dwarf-17-my-life-as-werebear.html']My Life as a Werebear[/URL]" (in [I]White Dwarf #17[/I]) that provided rules for player character monster species such as blink dog packs and giants. [CENTER][ATTACH type="full" alt="fantasy-4634079_1280.jpg"]117830[/ATTACH] [URL='https://pixabay.com/photos/fantasy-fairy-tales-sage-landscape-4634079/']Picture courtesy of Pixabay[/URL].[/CENTER] [B]“Race” vs. “Species”[/B] D&D rules uses the term “race” the way I would use “species”—nomenclature that is particularly present in the dominance of the “human race” in AD&D, as M.T. Black quoted Gary Gygax in [B][URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/dragon-reflections-29.669294/']Dragon Reflections #29[/URL][/B]. This is beginning to change; [URL='https://www.enworld.org/threads/do-we-still-need-race-in-d-d.665287/page-55'][B]Pathfinder 2E[/B] now uses ancestries” instead of race[/URL]. For the purposes of this article I’m using the term “species.” There are several reasons for multiple species in fantasy role-playing games: [LIST] [*]Variety [*]Role-Playing Opportunities [*]Increase Gameplay Depth [*]Tactical Advantages [/LIST] [B]Variety[/B] When the game is not skill-based, playable species help provide variety. Variety is obviously desirable in games because players have more ways to enjoy the play. That variety can come from different character classes, different skills, or different species, among many other things. Many game players nowadays favor variety over depth—depth requires more thinking, and not everyone wants to think for their entertainment. In other game fields, you may have seen board games that have "character cards" to achieve something like different kinds of playable creatures/people. Video games often have a few different playable characters. [B]Role-Playing Opportunities[/B] Many players will play a dwarf quite differently from how they play a human, and as playable species become more exotic the differences can be more exaggerated. I think a designer wants to have more or less familiar species before they start adding their own creations, as many players will play the familiar species but not the unfamiliar ones. [B]Increased Gameplay Depth[/B] Gameplay depth involves the number and importance of decisions in a game. As each species has different capabilities, you add to the possible depth of the game. A game can be relatively simple and still have lots of gameplay depth. It doesn't take a lot of thinking to cope with variety in a game, but to play a deep game well requires a lot of thought. While variety has been displacing gameplay depth in board games for quite some time, it still can exist in long board games if not in the short ones popular today. Same for RPGs. [B]Tactical Advantages[/B] Species with different capabilities can alter tactics. For example, even in games where you can hit your own people with an arrow shot into melee, you can pretty safely fire over the head of a dwarf if you stand immediately behind (and you're not another very short character). I recall playing with what we called the "elf army," that is, an adventuring party made up entirely of elves. We also had a "dwarf army" but that was less flexible because dwarves were not "magic users," though they had clerics. I remember playing in an all-human party that had no magic users, but without the extra benefits of being dwarves that was quite nerve-racking. [B]The Downside to So Many Species[/B] Some rulesets try to use restrictions on species to balance their advantages. Unfortunately, players and GMs tend to drop the restrictions, leading to a form of power creep that in turn leads to newly developed species being more powerful than the traditional ones. Species proliferation and a player's search to find one that's "good at everything" is a disadvantage of having lots of species. This variety also can lead to unbelievable variance in party composition that wouldn’t be found in most homogeneous fantasy cultures—although it strains credibility, this doesn’t usually bother players. All these extra rules can make life harder for the GM and even the players. Wise GMs will limit the species available to the players rather than accept anything that's published. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Worlds of Design: More Human Than Human
Top