jhkimrpg (jhkimrpg) wrote,

Race in RPG and the Alternatives

My theory post, "Who's on Top? -- Social Class in Tabletop RPGs" brought me back to some continuing thoughts on representations of race in RPGs, following up on my other posts under the racism tag.

In particular, I'd like to link to the Race in D&D blog, started by Chris Van Dyke last November after he gave a presentation on that topic for nerd nite in New York City. In addition, there are some excellent pointers and links in the IRIS network thread on race in games, "Where to next?"

The Meaning of Fantasy Races

As with social class, I think that portrayals of race in fantasy generally make statements about race. Scientifically speaking, fantasy races may be other species or sub-species depending on whether they can interbreed -- but in terms of themes they are metaphors for different kinds of people. In past debates on race in RPGs, there have been many people who have claimed that unless a work is about a specific real-world race, then that work has no racial themes. For example, unless dwarves are exactly intended to represent a specific real-world group such as Jews, then there is no significance to dwarven race themes.

I do not think that is true. By parallel, most people would agree that a science fiction or fantasy (SF/F) story can have an anti-war message even if it isn't narrowly about a specific war from real-world history. That is, you can write a story that closely maps to WWI in space, but a work can also comment on war in general without using that device. Similarly, I think that a fictional work (role-playing game or otherwise) can have comment on race and racial essentialism without using real-world races.

The different martian races of Edgar Rice Burrough's Barsoom are a good example (i.e. Red Martians, Green Martians, White Martians and Black Martians). They are clearly meant to illustrate lessons about race -- in much the same manner as fantasy races within his later works, such as the fictional races the Ho-don and the Waz-don in his Tarzan the Terrible (full text). There is disagreement over exactly how to read Burrough's themes, but one thing that is at least agreed on is that racial themes are central to many of his books.

I don't want to delve into exactly the meaning of any particular work. However, as with social class, I think there are implications of the choice. One of the telling bits from Van Dyke's "Race and D&D" presentation was his extended quote near the end from the white supremacy forum, Stormfront, entitled "Learn all you need to know about race from Dungeons and Dragons" -- where a white supremacist poster claimed that D&D gave him valuable insights into racial essentialism as a child.

Alternatives to Race

On a fantasy RPG character sheet, you will often see a lot of space to fill out things like age, height, weight along with details like hair color, eye color, home country, birthday, sibling rank. More often than not, these are cosmetic details that has no influence on character creation -- and on the rare cases they do, it is a minor adjustment. Even gender typically has little to no effect on character creation. However, race is enormously important. Even among games that try to distance themselves from Tolkienesque fantasy, the result is that you have a new set of races like cat-people or inventions like Gnorl -- but race is still the key trait of your character.

Given that this is fantasy with magic in the world, I think that there are many more possibilities for the important divisions among characters other than race and profession.

1) The birth date of a character could have an overt supernatural effect. There have been a few RPGs that have modifiers for this, such as the sun sign in HârnMaster or the moon phase in Werewolf. Take this more centrally, though, and the difference between a Taurus and a Pisces could be as great as the difference between an elf and a dwarf in Tolkienesque fantasy.

2) The place of birth of a character could have an overt supernatural effect, in a fantasy world where the lands themselves were alive and magical. Rather than a race of pixies, it could be that everyone born in the forested highlands can see in the dark and speak to birds.

3) The religion of a character could create an overt difference in everyone rather than being only a small modifier for priests. Worshiping the thunder god might make anyone stronger and grant protection from weather. Worshipping the earth god might increase constitution and improve other senses, but penalize sight.

4) Sibling rank could be central, exaggerating the stereotypes of such influence. For example, I played in a homebrew campaign campaign created by Robert Ellis based on fairy tales where sibling rank was vital. An eldest child was always a born leader, while the second was thoughtful and skilled, and so forth.

The point is that there are a host of possibilities for fantasy beyond race. For those designing fantasy games, don't just ask "what should the races be in my fantasy world?" Consider further possibilities beyond races, bloodlines, or tribes.

Racial Mechanics in RPGs

Even if we do assume that fantastical races are important, though, there are options in how they are handled. Following the lead of D&D, race in RPGs is often mechanically defined as a step in character creation where the player chooses one of a limited set of races, getting a package of modifiers. The choice may have a point cost (as in GURPS or Hero) or equivalently, effective character level cost -- but usually most races are equal. This assumes several things:
  1. Racial Unity
    Races are strongly grouped as distinct and uniform. This is particularly interesting given that in D&D, half-elfs and half-orcs are defined as races.
  2. Racial Monoculturalism
    There is usually a default culture for non-human races, but not for humans. This is sometimes mechanically explicit, such as in 3rd edition D&D. It is extremely common otherwise, however.
  3. Humano-centrism
    There are a number of RPGs that have a default of non-human characters -- such as most of White Wolf's World of Darkness series, or various anthromorphic animal games from Other Suns to Jadeclaw. However, among games where there is an option to pick between humans and other races, then human is the default and usually dominant species in the background.
There are good games that have been created using these, but I think it is useful to consider alternatives to these assumptions.

Variable Race Features

Within RPGs, the point systems of the eighties (notably the Hero System and GURPS) threw aside the idea of sharply-defined classes. Instead, the players decides for themselves what skills and advantages are appropriate for, say, a character who grew up as a bandit but then repented as an adult and joined the church. However, even in these systems, race is usually sharply defined. A character is an elf, a half-elf, or a human -- and each of the three has a fixed list of traits and modifiers.

However, such sharp divisions are not true in much of the source material. For example, in Tolkien, there many subtle variations in bloodline. An individual could be distinct by the bit of elven or Númenorean blood in their line. Given interbreeding, which is explicitly possible given half-elves and half-orcs, the races should have various blends just like real-world races.

For an RPG, this just means tossing out strict packages, and instead letting the player choose their own racial features -- just like how point systems allowed players to choose class features. This allows the player to decide the racial mix of their character. It thus puts a responsibility on them to choose a plausible combination of traits, just as they are responsible for a plausible combination of skills.

Varied Cultures

RPG fantasy worlds often have a dozen or more cultures. However, typically the majority of those are distinctly human cultures, while the non-human races each have essentially a single culture. That is, if I play an dwarf, I have a clear idea about what dwarves are like -- i.e. tropes like mining, battleaxes, beards, and so forth. However, if I play a human, there isn't the same.

I think there is a major conceptual shift to giving races even just two distinct cultures. As an example from science fiction, Romulans and Vulcans are racially the same but culturally distinct. With a monoculture, there is a tendency to think of traits as inborn -- i.e. "Klingons are inherently warlike; it's in their blood." Having contrasting cultures makes it explicit that such social tendencies are not inborn.

Within a game-world, one can take stock of the various cultures that are in it, and mix up what the dominant race of the culture is. So perhaps there is a dwarvish viking-like culture, but another set of dwarves is inspired by the Middle East and secrets of Damascus steel.

Non-humanocentric Races

It is relatively easy for an RPG to have a default of non-human characters, following the example of games like the Worlf of Darkness games or anthropomorphic animal games.

To be the default, then the central race should have no modifiers to their stats. Their abilities would be classified as "everyman abilities" -- similar to default abilities in other games, such as the abilities of vampires in the vampire games. In a game where elves were dominant, their abililities would be the standard, and humans might have the special weakness of "night blindness," along with a penalty to their Dexterity.

Some might argue that the stats will be more difficult to understand if they are not centered on human average. However, there are many games that do not have a uniform average for human stats. For example, in games derived from RuneQuest and Basic Roleplaying, the characteristics for Size, Intelligence, and Education have a different average than the others like Strength and Dexterity. A game can make clear what the human average is for each stat, thus giving a real-world picture, without making human the default.

Final Thoughts

I suppose a good question is why change things. i.e. Why have options other than race/species, or different ways of approaching race in the game?

However, I think that misplaces the burden. The question I ask is, "Why default to this standard handling of race?" Why not try something different, rather than just putting in new ideas for races into the same framework?
Tags: racism, theory
  • Post a new comment

    Error

    default userpic

    Your reply will be screened

    Your IP address will be recorded  

  • 21 comments

racerxmachina

May 16 2009, 01:33:04 UTC 4 years ago

I just emailed this to my husband, who's in the middle of a big RPG world-building project. He'll find it very valuable.

roseembolism

May 16 2009, 23:10:17 UTC 4 years ago

I do indeed. This has a lot of bearing on a number of issues I'm trying to work out in Under the Green Moon, my "hard fantasy" project. One ting I want to do is to avoid conflating race with culture, as most rpgs seem to do; I even dislike the way the term "race" is used in RPGs. I'm not sure if I've made things better or worse by using the term "breed" instead.

Complicating this in my WiP is that while I dislike making individuals of a race identical or stereotypes, the "younger" are actually products of advanced genetic engneering thousands of years previously. Therefore it makes sense that they would have common traits.

One thing I have done, is separate out cultures from breeds, and give stereotyped attitudes for those cultures (while noting that exceptions are plentiful). So for instance, a Viridian and a Daemon who are both nobles of the Old Empire will have more in common than two Viridians, one of whom is an Old Empire noble, and the other a sea nomad.

Anyway, this post gave me a lot to work with. Thank you!

whswhs

May 16 2009, 05:28:30 UTC 4 years ago

In Tolkien's case, at least, I'm not convinced that the different "races" are mainly analogs of human races. I've been struck for some time by a different analogy. Some literary critic wrote of W. B. Yeats that his social ideal was a perfect feudal system, with a learned clergy, a brave aristocracy, a contented peasantry, and tradesmen who knew their places. That's exactly what Tolkien gives us in the "free peoples": elves, men, hobbits, and dwarves, respectively. That is, he's showing us an idealized analog of Catholic medievalism . . . in which, of course, most of the different classes were endogenous, and perhaps even of different sizes: a knight's children would grow up bigger than a peasant's because they ate better.

And then, of course, the wicked industrial capitalists Sauron and Saruman come along and create a degenerate proletariat of orcs. . . .

macklinr

May 16 2009, 08:21:23 UTC 4 years ago

Interesting, John.

Another RPG that wasn't focused on the human average that comes to my mind is In Nomine. I'm not sure if you're familiar with that. It did have various varieties of angel & demon that were race package analogs, but it fit within its own paradigm.

jhkimrpg

May 17 2009, 16:11:10 UTC 4 years ago

I've browsed In Nomine, but don't know it in detail. It seems that as far as race goes, it is in the same framework as the World of Darkness games of being all non-human, with various splats as the groupings.

yamanin

May 16 2009, 11:40:48 UTC 4 years ago

Another problem with race/alien species is that most players run an elf exactly the same way they would run a dwarf, except perhaps favoring a race's 'signature weapon,' which in most systems is pretty much a cosmetic difference anyway.

The system I'm developing eschews fantasy races for all of the reasons stated above; instead; I have developed a set of very distinct human races and cultures. A character's culture of origin defines his starting language and the technology he's familiar with, but that's about it.

jhkimrpg

May 16 2009, 16:06:44 UTC 4 years ago

Fair enough. There certainly isn't a need for fantasy races or a parallel quality at all. I probably should have mentioned this as an option, since there are some games that have only human races, such as the OGL Conan game or 7th Sea.

I'm glad to hear about the culture of origin being a minor shift. The OGL Conan game, for example, treats its human races much like fantasy races. i.e. Shemites get a bonus to Appraise skill, bow use, and coup de grace; Kushites get a bonus to spear use and to outdoor skills in a hot environment; etc. For my tastes, this is uncomfortably close to R.E. Howard's view.

princeofcairo

May 17 2009, 07:29:41 UTC 4 years ago

Shouldn't a Conan game be close to Robert E. Howard's view?

jhkimrpg

May 17 2009, 09:40:02 UTC 4 years ago

Well, not for my tastes. I've only played one-shots of Conan, but I've done a fair bit of Call of Cthulhu, and one Lovecraft trope that I'm glad hasn't surfaced in play is being threatened by horrible, animalistic negroes.

I talk about this some in "What makes a good celebration?" Yes, by making a game a Conan game I am celebrating what makes Howard great -- but the game can be transformative and still true to the source.

Not all early writers were actively racist, but Lovecraft and Howard stand out to me. I love their writing, but there are parts of them that I'm not interested in reproducing.

sim_james

May 16 2009, 12:36:59 UTC 4 years ago

I followed that link to Stormfront - pretty scary stuff. I didn't like to read more than a few posts.

I don't think that there -needs- to be a "default" race. Some racial or cultural groups might be more or less common, but why do we -have- to be normative? There's no default race in Talislanta, helped by the lack of clear human/elf/dwarf analogues. You can easily define what the baseline is - zero in each stat - but there isn't a specific race that inhabits that position.

Heck, were I to redesign D&D, I'd love to give humans something like +2 Constitution and a bonus to overland travel and endurance. They're the baseline due to lazy design, not because there -has- to be a baseline.

jhkimrpg

May 16 2009, 15:32:43 UTC 4 years ago

That's a good point! However, I don't think humano-centrism is lazy. It is very deliberate, and indeed reflects common themes such as Tolkien's picture of humans eventually inheriting the world over the other races.

I don't think these choices are inherently lazy or wrong, just that there ought to be more variety. That would include no default, human default, and non-human default.

jamused

May 16 2009, 13:18:22 UTC 4 years ago

Maybe because "What would it be like to be, or at least interact with, non-human sapients?" is a much more compelling question than "What's your sign?"

jimhenley

May 16 2009, 15:16:00 UTC 4 years ago

I think what John is saying is

1. It wouldn't be like, "All elves are like this and all dwarves are like that, but humans are incredibly various," to the extent that the answer to "What would it be like" isn't completely arbitrary, non-human sapients being constructs of the human imagingation.

2. In fantasy, "What's your sign?" can be as compelling a question as you make it.

jhkimrpg

May 16 2009, 15:45:06 UTC 4 years ago

That sounds like a science fiction question to me. I don't think Tolkienesque fantasy really delves into what non-human sapience would be in any non-trivial way. My alternatives list, and indeed all of the above, is aimed at fantasy. In sci-fi, the alternatives to alien races would be rather different -- including transhumanism and cyber-modification.

Fantasy usually isn't about "what would it really be like to have elves" -- because that isn't a very compelling question, any more than whether the Enterprise could really beat a Star Destroyer. Instead, it's often about examining human traditions and myths.

Astrology has a vital place in history and culture, and was among other things a driving force behind the development of astronomy, mathematics, and physics in Europe. I think it is at least as central to our mythology as elves and dwarves are.

jimhenley

May 16 2009, 18:55:30 UTC 4 years ago

Imagine if being born under a sign had noticeable phenomorphic effect: e.g. every Cancer can breathe water, and even has chitinous skin; every Taurus is heavy-bodied with multiple stomachs etc. Maybe there are issues around pair-bonding outside your sign (maybe Pisces don't even pair-bond, they just squirt milt), and Aries tend to hook up with Aries etc. But the vagaries of human gestation schedules mean that even if two married Aries try to have a baby Ram and conceive at the proper time, they've got a decent chance of birthing a Fish or a Bull. You can be LESS flashy than that, but you don't have to be.

racerxmachina

May 16 2009, 19:36:34 UTC 4 years ago

Or, with less genetics thingies, a culture where a baby's horoscope is told by the village priest and the physical attributes magically granted shortly after birth.

tiffany_company

June 26 2010, 09:00:17 UTC 2 years ago

Your post is great, I have some common ideas with you.

Anonymous

May 17 2009, 03:05:06 UTC 4 years ago

Race in RPG's

I'm going to make a series of barely-related remarks. I don't really have a point, just some musings.

You give a lot of suggestions for non-racial differentiations. They might make games more interesting, but I'm not sure what the message they give about race and our interactions with ``others'' is. If society is segregated by birth-sign, is that really different from being segregated by race? (I guess, relatives would fall into different categories, but the same for race categories could be said of the southern US, where the children of the master by the slave are themselves slaves and the ``one drop'' rules perpetuated this into the Jim Crow era, e.g., Strom Thurmond).

Races are in the source material for a fantasy based campaign. Myths and fairy tales of almost all cultures have magical humanoids around, whether dwarves, fae, satyrs, djinn, or the equivalent. While we usually make them too mundane when we allow them as player characters, there was something unearthly about them in the legends. Many fantasy races originally had a religious significance but the divine aspects diminished over time (e.g., the stories outlived the religion that they arose from.) But I think there is also a process of enchantment of the other, where another human culture is mythologized into a fantastic race. The Picts that were pushed into the uncut forests become Elves to the Anglo-Saxons or something like that.

I think many people play Dwarves or Elves because it is a strong role that they do not have to invent themselves. They want to act out their role, but they don't want to have to think through what their character's personality is like. Being a Dwarf is a short-cut to having a vivid character. Saying that ``Not all dwarves are alike'' is just going to give them a headache. (And it won't work, because everyone knows what a Dwarf is now anyway. If you want non-standard Dwarves, call them something else.)

My Crystal Palace game was explicitly avoiding humancentricism, by not having any human characters (so you wouldn't count it.) To some extent, it was also meant to explore themes of race. In the Crystal Palace, belief defined reality. So all stereotypes were (largely) true, almost by definition. The question was, if all stereotypes are true, aren't we still morally obligated to treat others well? The player characters were
generally speaking on the side of drawing strength from diversity, as opposed to the divide-and-conquer bad guys, who preferred their own race over others. (Actually, your character Slick was the most open to the non-PC NPC's POV.)

In my short-lived (but not completely dead) Mitgard game, the god you worshiped did give you powers, that could change your appearance and basic abilities. (The exact powers /changes were selected from a menu as characters levelled, so varied for individuals.) However, there were also the non-human Norse mythic races, that could draw power directly from their homeworlds rather than from deities. (Although they could also make deals with gods.) There was not a clear cultural divide between the different races, so a fire giant and a valkyrie could both be vassals of a human lord and have a similar status. There was a sharper class divide, between the eorls, carls, and skalds, with fairly strict restrictions preventing each class from poaching on the others' turfs. (Only eorls can wear armor, only carls can buy or make things, only skalds can perform religious rituals...) I'm not sure that it told a different story about race than more standard RPG's.

Russell

selentic

May 17 2009, 19:39:57 UTC 4 years ago

Usually i ignore, or denigrate (and, ouch, what a word!), the whole idea of Tolkien-esque fantasy race, but from a world-building perspective, the part of the issue here that i find particularly interesting (though i haven't had the opportunity to play with it yet) is the exploration of what the world would be like if it really had different (biological) races.

Imagine a world where Neanderthals, H. erectus, even Paranthropus, survived alongside us... now there is a fantasy racism background worth exploring! (Of course, we can just say Elves, Dwarves, etc... but it's more interesting to start from scratch, and not just follow the Tolkien bandwagon.)

People who are really different... or maybe not.

I suppose that's the whole question we'd be asking if we put the word "race" (or species, even) in our games.

What else could we hope to learn from such a game?

selentic

May 17 2009, 20:09:32 UTC 4 years ago

On the other hand, i like where the OP is going:

What if race in our fantasy game isn't based on genetics, or even any kind of birthright (star signs, etc)...

...what if it is a choice made by each hero? (What if they let their parents/guardians make it for them?)

Anonymous

May 18 2009, 20:56:45 UTC 4 years ago

For some alternate background character options, there is this comic book and its subsequent RPG, Artesia (both authored by the same guy), which has an interesting take on how birth order, horoscope and social status influence character creation. It even has a Fate/Destiny system based on the tarot Major Arcana that may help with character growing and for earning experience points.

I really like some of the ideas presented in this thread, if only to enrichen one's perspective of game designing and character creation. I can relate with the old D&D authors that, from a system design POV, simplifyed character options as a necessity back in the early days of the hobby. Yet these racial archetypes have stuck with us for quite some time now. I wondered why is that, and I cannot help but think that essentialism is still not widely seen as an inherently bad trait, especially in regard to gender and social class stereotypes. That's why women still keep earning less than men in most countries, or why education is still far from becoming the suppossed social ladder that many middle classites hope to be.

Well, just my two cents.

Regards,

ZOOROOS