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]

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.

I love L5R, but that game has a specific setting with factions that all have history and relationships with each other. Core D&D doesn't have that, and seems to want to move away from even looking like they do in the core rules.

 

[Hussar]

Then why are we having this discussion? If everyone want to be equal, then there is no difference and it just means we can have bumpy foreheads, your dwarf archer is just a bearded short archer. It is the Happy Meal and no need to explore ROLE playing and challenging players in their game.

(I am feeling I am too old for this)

This is actually a fairly easy question to answer.

Base physical stuff like "Dwarves can't use bows" is boring. It's lazy world building really. It's really easy to do that sort of thing. Much more difficult to actually present real, challenging differences that actually make a difference in play. Dwarves are different because they live underground. Think of what that would actually do to an intelligent species. Social structures that would be highly hierarchical because the last thing you want when you live half a mile underground and a mistake can kill everyone is a free thinker. Language that would be very direct and blunt - because again, misunderstandings aren't just embarrassing, they are actually deadly. The notion of family and clan, which is already in D&D dwarves being important.

But, the key thing here is that we need to have actual mechanical weight to these elements. The player should be rewarded for trying to portray these things in the game with more than just a hearty pat on the head for "good roleplaying". This is why so many of the suggestions are combat related. It's easy to have that cycle of reward in combat - you are good with axes, for example, so, you get a +1 with an axe for being a dwarf and that +1 applies to every attack you make.

Thing is, those kinds of bonuses are the lowest hanging fruit. Does anyone really feel like Elf is being portrayed because that elf gets a +1 with longswords? Not really. It never gets mentioned during play typically. No one cares.

So, we need to add a framework to the game where race actually matters. I'd suggest something in the Backgrounds which is tied to the race of your character that adds to the already existing backgrounds. So that Human Criminal gives you a somewhat different background than Dwarf Criminal or Halfling Criminal. ((I have no idea why Criminal background popped into my head, )) Tie that to the Inspiration rules and you've got a good system for making race actually matter in the game.

 

[Remathilis]

I love L5R, but that game has a specific setting with factions that all have history and relationships with each other. Core D&D doesn't have that, and seems to want to move away from even looking like they do in the core rules.

Which is the absolute opposite of what they should do. They should follow Paizo on this one have a generic "D&D world" and let all thier fluff and rules reflect it. It would suck you lose the myriad of settings like Eberron and Ravenloft, but if the options are one setting richly detailed with complex cultures and races or an absolutely bland generic core, the setting wins every time.

 

[Scribe]

Which is the absolute opposite of what they should do. They should follow Paizo on this one have a generic "D&D world" and let all thier fluff and rules reflect it. It would suck you lose the myriad of settings like Eberron and Ravenloft, but if the options are one setting richly detailed with complex cultures and races or an absolutely bland generic core, the setting wins every time.

I truly believe that this is the best option, unless with a 6e or 5.5e reboot to remove everything people can point to as 'problematic' they then just adopt Eberron as their core setting moving forward.

 

[MGibster]

I truly believe that this is the best option, unless with a 6e or 5.5e reboot to remove everything people can point to as 'problematic' they then just adopt Eberron as their core setting moving forward.

Impossible. What's problematic is on a spectrum and subject to the whims of opinion which are not static. I promise you something we find perfectly acceptable today will be problematic 10, 15, or 20 years in the future. In 2041 it might be seen as problematic to deny the uniqueness of "lineages" as this reinforces an attitude that we're all the same and pressures marginalized people to conform to the majority's standards.

 

[Scribe]

What's problematic is on a spectrum and subject to the whims of opinion which are not static. I promise you something we find perfectly acceptable today will be problematic 10, 15, or 20 years in the future. In 2041 it might be seen as problematic to deny the uniqueness of "lineages" as this reinforces an attitude that we're all the same and pressures marginalized people to conform to the majority's standards.

Sounds like a nice obsolescence model for Wizards to cash in on.

 

[MGibster]

Sounds like a nice obsolescence model for Wizards to cash in on.

Audience preferences change over time. If WotC wants D&D to remain relevant they've got to change to suit those preferences.

 

[EzekielRaiden]

It honestly baffles me how people struggle so hard with this question. Developing realistic differences between physiologically-distinct beings is just a matter of asking, "What would this physiology do, and how would that scale up?"

I like dragonborn for discussing this example, both because I like them a bunch and therefore have thought about them more, and because dragonborn have very clear physiological differences that can be met with specific responses and some traditional cultural-value differences that can be parleyed for interesting results.

First: Dragonborn have a dragon breath. Even if it's not a universal feature, having the ability to belch some kind of elemental effect repeatedly? Yeah, that's gonna have some meaningful impact on a bunch of stuff, because now any given citizen may have the equivalent of a blowtorch or a bottle of aqua regia on hand at all times. For starters, prisons and detainment. You can't rely on metal cages. Dragonborn prisons likely rely more on pits and passive detainment, and probably need regular maintenance even given that. Likewise, violence in the streets is more likely to cause grievous injury--so there are probably social rules or even hard laws about inappropriate uses of breath weapons. Some locations may even require that individuals actively expend their breath weapon before entry.

On the more positive side, there's all sorts of stuff you can do with the ability to (say) burn stuff really fast, or freeze things, or whatever--artistic works that can only be made by careful application of dragon breath, or performance art that relies on evocative display of fire or lightning or whatever. A culture that expects a significant portion of its population to have elemental breath will differ in both its physical artifacts and its accepted behaviors.

Next: Development and maturity. Dragonborn develop shockingly quickly. They're able to walk almost immediately after hatching, and can speak fairly fluently within their first year (they have "the mental and physical development of a 3-year-old human child" at that point). They reach adult height by about 12, are mentally and physically mature at 15, and are specifically said to "mature quickly throughout [their] youthful development." Just to unpack some of that: at an age where human children are just beginning to say their first words and can take a couple of unsupported steps without falling, dragonborn children can string multiple sentences together, climb and run easily, play make-believe, and correctly use relatively complex objects like books and tricycles. And they continue quickly developing all the way to age 12, at which point they spend a few years rounding out their development.

It's a bit difficult to explain how quick this is. Imagine if most children could start pre-school education at 1-2 years old, finish elementary school by age 6-7, and be ready for college by age 12-13. One of the more humorous ways I've phrased this is: Dragonborn actually do live by "anime protagonist" rules, where a five-year-old could genuinely (if rarely) be a prodigy with swordplay and someone leading armies at age 12 would be unusual but not shockingly unrealistic. (Consider: Alexander the Great had his first military command at age 16.) Couple that with having comparable maximum lifespans, and you have a recipe for a race that develops at a breakneck pace. And on top of that, female dragonborn lay eggs, so they don't stay pregnant for long, and wean their children within the first few months of life.

This is going to have enormous impacts on all sorts of things. Firstly, women are unlikely to be as sequestered/secluded as they are in human societies because any female can breastfeed a child and they don't deal with several months of precarious pregnancy. That alone is a nearly incalculable difference from human societies--the focus shifts away from protecting the women to protecting the nest. Secondly, early childhood is gone in a flash for them--"baby's first steps" isn't really a milestone when most children walk the day they're hatched. I would expect a lot of impact on the metaphor and symbolism associated with innocence, childhood, maturity, etc. to differ, because these things are incredibly ephemeral for dragonborn. Third and finally, if you can churn out a new generation in ~15 years when it takes humans ~20 years, you're going to get some serious population dynamics differences. In the time span it takes humans to have three generations (60 years), dragonborn have four generations (60/15 = 4). So they have a meaningful percentage of increased able-bodied individuals (women are built very similarly to men, don't spend lots of time pregnant or nursing) and their population innately grows faster by about 1.16% per year (an extra doubling every 60 years). The advantages conferred by faster development and reduced strain on mothers are enormous.

And that's just two things. I could easily go into other stuff, like how having scales vs. skin (and lacking sweat glands) affects stuff like clothing (high variability there), how their likelihood of having internal genitalia may affect nudity taboos (if there's not really anything to see, there's less need to cover up), or the whole question of interspecies romance when it seems plausible that "half-dragonborn" don't happen. You can do similar things with every species, they're just less narrowly-detailed so you have fewer hard points to riff off of. But you can very easily do similar stuff.

 

[Hussar]

I have to admit, the whole "bumpy headed humans" thing does baffle me too. It's such a simple thing to fix. But, again, I do think that the reason we see "bumpy headed humans" is because D&D doesn't actually reward playing anything other than a human that can see in the dark or a human that can breathe fire or a human that lives hundreds of years. Why bother actually playing an elf or a dwarf or a halfling when there is zero reason to do so?

 

[Augreth]

But those are setting elements. How do you differentiate them in the core rules?

There is no setting element that is not represented in the core rules. And all rules are setting elements, especially in D&D. D&D is no generic rules system. If it were it wouldn’t have any races at all but only a system for generating one. Other examples include its cosmology, which is very setting specific, and also its magic system: the way of using spells, or even having spells at all, is not generic, but very unique to D&D.

Back to the topic: there are biological differences like darkvision or long life, and there are historical/cultural differences, which can be handled with skills or feats or other abilities, like the dwarven stonecunning. Of course, it’s the player who has to turn this into something memorably different from his human pals.