Quote from: Corolinth on May 05, 2024, 10:39:34 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 03, 2024, 04:51:06 PMThe controversial part of the Deadlands Confederacy timeline is that Jefferson Davis outlawed slavery in 1864 - just a year after Gettysburg. That is more ridiculous than zombies. The whole purpose of the Civil War was to preserve slavery. It's written into most of the rebelling states' constitutions. If slavery was outlawed by decree of the Confederate president, then why would the states still rebel against the Union? It not only goes against slavery, it goes against state's rights.

Except that it's not that ridiculous.
...
The overwhelming majority of southerners did not own slaves. Do you really think the masses were going to fight to protect the wealthy elite's right to something the rest of them could never attain, unless there were other, additional causes for the war? It was mostly about slavery, but there were other factors.

Wars have almost always been fought for the good of the elites rather than the concerns of the common people - that has been true through to modern times, even in democracies. Poor white Southerners might not care about keeping slaves themselves, but they absolutely did not want free black people competing for their jobs, being sheriff or mayor, or marrying their daughters - so they cared a great deal about keeping black people enslaved.

What are these other reasons that you think the common Southerners were fighting for? President Davis' declaration tramples over at least the state's rights banner as well as slavery. What does that leave?

Quote from: Corolinth on May 05, 2024, 10:39:34 AMSimply put, the Confederacy can't survive as an independent nation unless they get on board with banning slavery. The wealthy aristocrats are just going to suck it up and deal with it, because the common citizen doesn't own slaves and probably wants the war to be over so they can go back to their lives.

Freeing slaves would have some tactical advantages with allies, but it makes no sense politically. Without the issue of slavery and state's rights to decide it, there is no compelling reason for the Confederate states to rebel.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 02:59:30 AMFreeing slaves would have some tactical advantages with allies, but it makes no sense politically. Without the issue of slavery and state's rights to decide it, there is no compelling reason for the Confederate states to rebel.

Sure there is: spite.  After a few years of brutal warfare I could see both sides being reluctant or outright refusing to just hug it out and go back to being a united country, even if they also weren't in any hurry to go back to a hot war.  "Those fuckers killed my dad/son/brother/neighbor/dog." would easily suffice to delay reunification by years.  Just look at how long Ireland took to stop blowing each other up, and that wasn't even at the point of open warfare like the US had.

The only irk that I have with PEG is that they changed 'race' to 'ancestry' after the SWADE (which included 'race') was released. I asked them why they changed the term and I got the usual 'it's a problematic term' response.

Yeah I wasn't a fan of that either. But then I'm not married to the term "race" when it comes to gaming. It's like calling someone a retard>moron>imbecile>mongoloid>etc. We *know* what you mean with whatever new word.

Is it something I'm going to hold against them? Not really. But I do agree there is such thing as Death by a Thousand cuts. This is only cut 3 or 4 for me with them. And frankly I'm not going to a thousand.

So far, I'm okay.

Problematic is one of my favorite words.  One need not even explain the problem, just use that word and the person listening then must scour their minds to determine the problem themselves.  Best word ever.

The most charitable interpretation is that something like "ancestry" allows for a human raised by elves or something.

Which is one of those "nice on paper" ideas, but then you realize even that is stupid because that's something that didn't happen until Last Tuesday.

"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species.  Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species.  If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears.  I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me.  I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me.  Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.

Quote from: Valatar on May 06, 2024, 02:28:09 PM"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species.  Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species.  If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears.  I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me.  I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me.  Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.

In a generic game like GURPS or HERO or Savage Worlds, I don't think any of these makes sense generically across universes. Ancestry doesn't refer to who you were raised by - it refers more broadly to your line of descent. Ancestry is a little broader than race, since race implies that there is a viable group of such beings. For example, characters like Spock or Aragorn are defined by their ancestry, but they don't have a singular race that they represent.

Mechanically, I dislike how Savage Worlds enumerates racial abilities separately from character abilities, and forces all races to be zero cost. If I'm playing in a Star Trek game, then "Singh-type android" isn't a species, race, or ancestry - and it certainly isn't equivalent in cost to human. Likewise, Noldorin elves or ents aren't equal choices with humans or hobbits in Tolkien.

Terms like race, species, or ancestry should be part of the background that fits with the game-world, not part of the mechanics. Mechanics should have something like "template" and that template could represent any sort of common grouping of abilities together.

I like it because most of these rules are generic on purpose. In your setting you can make your races be whatever you need them to be, hence the customization rules.

Quote from: tenbones on May 06, 2024, 04:13:57 PMI like it because most of these rules are generic on purpose. In your setting you can make your races be whatever you need them to be, hence the customization rules.

I feel like it's less generic to have separate and redundant mechanics for "racial abilities" and "character abilities". For example, SWADE has "Size -1" as a racial trait and then has a separate listing for "Small" as a character trait. Worse, "Big" is a negative racial trait (Size +1) that works differently than the "Brawny" character Edge (Size +1).

To me, it makes more sense to have traits, then one can apply those traits equally whether they are because of race, cyberware, magic, superscience, etc.

Packages of traits could represent a species, a race, a cultural background, a membership (i.e. Order of Hermes or space marine), a profession/class, etc.

Quote from: Valatar on May 06, 2024, 02:28:09 PM"Ancestry" makes little to no sense when it's referring to a species.  Being human isn't our ancestry, it's our species.  If you take a human and raise them with elves they don't suddenly get nightvision and pointy ears.  I've never had any particular objection to changing "race" to "species", as that just seems more accurate to me.  I get that it sounds more sci-fi than race does so may be jarring in a fantasy game, but it doesn't really bother me.  Ancestry, on the other hand, is wildly inaccurate.

Meanwhile, the dwarf's bonuses when fighting giants and their keen sense of natural and worked stone are due to their cultural upbringing and not dwarven biology. I don't have the time or the inclination to do a complete audit of various editions of D&D, let alone other fantasy RPGs. The point is, not all of those racial traits are genetic, some of them are cultural. We are not very good at drawing that distinction, either, because for the entire history of humans and our hominid ancestors, the majority of us have lived in racial monocultures.

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 06:05:47 PMI feel like it's less generic to have separate and redundant mechanics for "racial abilities" and "character abilities". For example, SWADE has "Size -1" as a racial trait and then has a separate listing for "Small" as a character trait. Worse, "Big" is a negative racial trait (Size +1) that works differently than the "Brawny" character Edge (Size +1).

To me, it makes more sense to have traits, then one can apply those traits equally whether they are because of race, cyberware, magic, superscience, etc.

Packages of traits could represent a species, a race, a cultural background, a membership (i.e. Order of Hermes or space marine), a profession/class, etc.

But that *is* how it works.

Sometimes those descriptors are merely just that - a verbal description, but it uses an established mechanic to signify that. And remember, these only exist as distinctions that *matter* i.e. there is a mechanical benefit/drawback for this race or character ability.

For example - having "Big" is merely a description of size. Having the Brawny Edge means you're strong and jacked. Not everyone that's big is strong and large, that's cooked into what being Brawny means. Likewise Brawny doesn't overtly say you're BIG, its says you're "very large OR very fit" which is simulated by increasing your Size, Strength and Toughness by 1. It's not supposed to be "realistic", it's simply supposed to represent something about a character that makes them tough and strong above/beyond a normal representative of their race.

There is *nothing* preventing a Halfling from taking Brawny. It means that particular halfling is a tough son-of-bitch compared to whatever the baseline halfling is. Exceptions to this rule are things like certain Hindrances which 1) you get bonus starting points for and are voluntary 2) requires you pay them off if you wish to remove them, which might require an in-game narrative reason. Certain Hindrances might preclude you from purchasing certain Edges. For example you can't be Obese (Hindrance) and purchase the Brawny Edge.

If you want to create a race that is so ingrained with say... cyberware - nothing prevents you from saying a racial trait comes from inherent "cyberware", or "magical rituals" or even just societal conditioning to represent <X> which is ubiquitous to the entire race.

Example - you might rewrite in the JHKIM-world your halflings, to be rebalanced pointwise, they don't have the Luck trait, instead they culturally replace their teeth with steel-teeth which gives them the Bite trait, and institute a program of Spartan-like Agogi which gives them Toughness. This is the trade off from having that good-ol'fashioned happy-go-lucky Halflings, into being steel-mawed biting tough little bastards.

Packages of traits *do* represent these things you want. It just matters where you place them and how you define them.

What am I missing?

Quote from: Corolinth on May 06, 2024, 06:13:00 PMMeanwhile, the dwarf's bonuses when fighting giants and their keen sense of natural and worked stone are due to their cultural upbringing and not dwarven biology. I don't have the time or the inclination to do a complete audit of various editions of D&D, let alone other fantasy RPGs. The point is, not all of those racial traits are genetic, some of them are cultural. We are not very good at drawing that distinction, either, because for the entire history of humans and our hominid ancestors, the majority of us have lived in racial monocultures.

Yeah I didn't realize people didn't "get this" about Savage Worlds. Ancestry is representative of whatever tropes define your race and culture.

This is precisely why I've been saying for years that D&D is its own brand of fantasy. There is no specific thing about any of the traditional race of D&D that is 100% uniform across its settings. Which is why I perfectly understand your point about having to audit your races based on D&D's various takes on them.

Hence... Savage Worlds let's you quickly and consistently define the tropes you require for *your* setting.

Case in point. In my Savage Worlds Forgotten Realms all my races are +4 points and I define Lightfoot Halflings as:

Lightfoot Halflings
Dextrous:  Halflings are quick on their feet and spry even when they don't appear to be. They begin with d6 Agility.

Fun-Loving: Halflings are renowned for their ability to put people at ease and disarm them with their almost childish charm. Halflings begin with Persuasion at d6.

Light-Step: Halflings are naturally quiet when they move. Halflings begin with d6 Stealth and the skill cap is raised to d12+1.

Lucky Bastards: Halflings draw one additional Benny per game session. This may be combined with the Luck and Great Luck Edges.

Half-Pint:  Halflings average only about 3'- 3'4" 'tall. This gives them a Size of –1 and subtracts 1 from their Toughness.

Laaaaiiid Back: Halflings are renowned for their easy-going nature. They know their place in the big picture and make no bones about it. Halflings have the Mild-Mannered Hindrance due to cultural mores and the pursuit of pleasure and pleasantry above all else (this may be bought off with an Advance).

Whereas my Strongheart Halflings have different traits -

Strongheart Halflings
Dextrous:  Strongheart Halflings are quick on their feet and spry even when they don't appear to be. They begin with d6 Agility.

Challenge Accepted: Strongheart Halflings enjoy physical challenges which are part of their everyday culture.. They start with a d6 Athletics skill.

Observant: Keen senses allow Strongheart halflings to catch details others might miss. They start with a d6 in Notice instead of a d4. This increases maximum Notice to d12+1.

Tall-Pint:  Though Strongheart Halflings average only about 3'6"-4'tall. Like their cousins this gives them a Size of –1 and subtracts 1 from their Toughness.

True Allies: Strongheart Halflings are culturally driven to protect the Hin and those loyal to them. As such they rarely falter in their support of one another or those allies. Strongheart Halflings have a powerful sense of esprit de corps, and have the Loyal Hindrance.

Can Do Spirit!: Strongheart Halflings never give up when set to task. Whether the goal is a footrace against a horse, a drinking contest against a dwarf. Stronghearts are up to the task and will give it their all. This is not to be confused with being arrogant, it is in the nature of the Strongheart Halfling culture that anything worth doing is worth attaining for its own sake. They have the Elan Edge.

This might not be what some GM's want to do, but if you like doing hands on stuff, SW is wonderful at it. It excels at homebrewing or converting other material over very easily.

Quote from: tenbones on May 07, 2024, 10:33:21 AM

Quote from: jhkim on May 06, 2024, 06:05:47 PMI feel like it's less generic to have separate and redundant mechanics for "racial abilities" and "character abilities". For example, SWADE has "Size -1" as a racial trait and then has a separate listing for "Small" as a character trait. Worse, "Big" is a negative racial trait (Size +1) that works differently than the "Brawny" character Edge (Size +1).

To me, it makes more sense to have traits, then one can apply those traits equally whether they are because of race, cyberware, magic, superscience, etc.

Packages of traits could represent a species, a race, a cultural background, a membership (i.e. Order of Hermes or space marine), a profession/class, etc.

But that *is* how it works.

Quote from: tenbones on May 07, 2024, 10:33:21 AMPackages of traits *do* represent these things you want. It just matters where you place them and how you define them.

What am I missing?

I'll get more specific. In SWADE, pages 18-20 have 46 traits specifically for races, and each companion book adds many more racial traits. Racial traits are special rules that only apply to races. If someone is eight and a half feet tall because of being a typical ogre (say), they'll have the racial trait and will refer to page 19 for the "Size+1" trait rules. Conversely, if someone is eight and a half feet tall from being a huge human, though, they don't use those rules - they instead use "Brawny" on page 38 to represent their greater size. Similarly, a non-human character could be fast because of their race and refer to the "Pace+2" race rule on page 19, or a human character could be "Fleet Footed" and use the rules on page 39 (that gives +2 Pace).

Each has a different cost listing, and different text. The traits sometimes have different mechanics. For example, a race can be "Big" for a -2 cost, but this trait can't apply to an individual character with gigantism.

It would be cleaner to not have pages of rules that are only used for races, but instead have general rules that can be used for those traits regardless of whether it is because of race, condition, magic, environment, etc.

Quote from: jhkim on May 07, 2024, 01:36:53 PMI'll get more specific. In SWADE, pages 18-20 have 46 traits specifically for races, and each companion book adds many more racial traits. Racial traits are special rules that only apply to races. If someone is eight and a half feet tall because of being a typical ogre (say), they'll have the racial trait and will refer to page 19 for the "Size+1" trait rules. Conversely, if someone is eight and a half feet tall from being a huge human, though, they don't use those rules - they instead use "Brawny" on page 38 to represent their greater size. Similarly, a non-human character could be fast because of their race and refer to the "Pace+2" race rule on page 19, or a human character could be "Fleet Footed" and use the rules on page 39 (that gives +2 Pace).

Racial traits are *not* for players to choose. They're for GM's to design their own custom races for their settings.

As such - if a player was playing a Baseline human and wanted to be 8' (specifically) tall, yes, technically speaking being Size 1 would reach 8'. But that doesn't mean *all* humans are 8'. It means you've just made some special snowflake that could be that tall if your GM allows it.

Again, I don't see the issue?

Quote from: jhkim on May 07, 2024, 01:36:53 PMEach has a different cost listing, and different text. The traits sometimes have different mechanics. For example, a race can be "Big" for a -2 cost, but this trait can't apply to an individual character with gigantism.

It would be cleaner to not have pages of rules that are only used for races, but instead have general rules that can be used for those traits regardless of whether it is because of race, condition, magic, environment, etc.

Well again, Racial traits are for game content creation, not for players per se. You absolutely could make a race that is "Big" and by big - you could make them Size 3, which is Hill-Stone Giant sized and *nothing* prevents you from also taking Brawny.

As I pointed out - there is no functional difference between a racial statbloc or any other. The traits they gave you are just a means to make a new race for play. How you want to rationalize those traits is, and should be, totally up to you as  the GM