Quote from: Zelen on July 30, 2021, 03:57:30 PM
It's also colored by a formality/scientific classification that's probably not appropriate for most fantasy worlds. YMMV.

Ironically, we can trace the use of the word species back far further into history (the first use we can find in writing dates to Aristotle, so the 300's BC at least) than we can trace the use of Race (which didn't emerge until the AD 1600-1700's in conjunction with widespread colonization).

If anything, the term race is utterly anachronistic to anything presenting itself as vaguely medieval while species is something medieval peoples would be familiar with. The actual terms that would most apply would be Clan, Kin or perhaps Genus... but not "race." But to quote the TV Trope, "Reality is Unrealistic."

For the record too; my system's default setting is very "Thundarr the Barbarian" inspired and arcane magic is heavily implied to be of the "sufficiently advanced technology" variety (arcane in this case being the original definition; i.e. "something that is poorly understood by all but the experts in the field")... so species makes a lot of sense for either reason (actual historic usage and implied sci-fi elements for some magic).

Quote from: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 04:11:17 PM
Yeah, I also don't like species for fantasy games - though I don't think species implies any degree of relation. There are species of algae as well as species of gorilla.

I have to note the irony in that the examples you gave of using species demonstrate the exact issue I called out.

Quote from: jhkim on July 30, 2021, 04:11:17 PM
I am coming to like "ancestry" for class-based games -- because ancestry is about how you were born or created, background is about how you grew up, and class is about what you are trained in as an adult. That fits nicely as ABC and it is clear from the term that ancestry is about inherent qualities.

Personally, and this might just be me, when I read "Ancestry" my brain immediately jumps to thinking this is a background like "Noble," "Nomad," "Merchant", etc. While it expresses a certain aspect of a character, to me it doesn't really feel like it expresses the same inherent properties nor does it capture that the attributes of "Ancestry" are common to a given set of people, rather than an individual.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2021, 05:03:43 PM
Ironically, we can trace the use of the word species back far further into history (the first use we can find in writing dates to Aristotle, so the 300's BC at least) than we can trace the use of Race (which didn't emerge until the AD 1600-1700's in conjunction with widespread colonization).

Yeah, undoubtedly. We could also use Nation/Nationality, a word with a similar provenance. In either case I lean against it because of issues with the current audience's likely usage of the words.

Of course the specific word a pretty nitpicky issue regardless. I'm opposed to reinventing the lexicon by default, and particularly because (pertinent to the thread) the intent behind changing the word "Race" has been political in nature.

Quote from: Zelen on July 30, 2021, 07:28:31 PM
Of course the specific word a pretty nitpicky issue regardless. I'm opposed to reinventing the lexicon by default, and particularly because (pertinent to the thread) the intent behind changing the word "Race" has been political in nature.

It may be political for some, but for me it's just that I've got playable dragons, sprites, centaurs, plant-people, talking animals, etc.

I can see "race" when your list is human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome and various halfbreeds thereof (including half-orcs)... those are all not just humans, but, as old-school D&D notes, demi-humans (i.e. in terms of modern genetics they're probably subspecies of a common homonid ancestor).

It just doesn't feel right for me though. Species doesn't even feel right because there are golems on my list. Ancestry or lineage could almost work as the backstory of the golems has them manufactured as part of specific historical lines.

Probably the best term for them all now that I think about it is probably "Kind" (i.e. humankind, golemkind, dragonkind, etc.).

I have used "blood" for a partial replacement of "race" in a fantasy setting a couple of times.  However, in those settings, there was a certain amount of fantastical genetics underlying things, with "blood" deliberately selected to be somewhat of a vague reference to it that the common people would use.  No doubt the more advanced entities involved has their more technical terms.

Quote from: Chris24601 on July 30, 2021, 08:44:07 PM
It may be political for some, but for me it's just that I've got playable dragons, sprites, centaurs, plant-people, talking animals, etc.

I can see "race" when your list is human, dwarf, elf, halfling, gnome and various halfbreeds thereof (including half-orcs)... those are all not just humans, but, as old-school D&D notes, demi-humans (i.e. in terms of modern genetics they're probably subspecies of a common homonid ancestor).

It just doesn't feel right for me though. Species doesn't even feel right because there are golems on my list. Ancestry or lineage could almost work as the backstory of the golems has them manufactured as part of specific historical lines.

Probably the best term for them all now that I think about it is probably "Kind" (i.e. humankind, golemkind, dragonkind, etc.).

To me "race" doesn't have any necessary implication of genetic relatedness. It seems reasonable to use race if playing a dragon, a minotaur, or a human. It's a pretty big conceptual bucket.

The only exception I'd put to that is artificial/created entities lack a requisite sense of "group." It's nonsensical to conceive of a "race" that doesn't share any common attributes. So if every Golem were different, then there'd be a problem. However, this objection is pretty academic, because even with a purely point-buy race, the salient shared characteristic then might become the lack of shared characteristic.

I think the woke ideal is to lean 100% nurture and 0% nature. That's why they claim your gender is assigned by your society at birth and your genetics are therefore unimportant. The same applies to their view on race, which is why you can now (as of the Tasha's book) play a dwarf with elf racial abilities or vice versa.

To me this view is nonsensical, because even if I were to have been adopted by Sherpas, I can't simply pick up the genetic modifications I need to survive at high altitudes without sickness. These things take generations to develop.

Quote from: mightybrain on July 31, 2021, 09:07:19 PM
I think the woke ideal is to lean 100% nurture and 0% nature. That's why they claim your gender is assigned by your society at birth and your genetics are therefore unimportant. The same applies to their view on race, which is why you can now (as of the Tasha's book) play a dwarf with elf racial abilities or vice versa.

To me this view is nonsensical, because even if I were to have been adopted by Sherpas, I can't simply pick up the genetic modifications I need to survive at high altitudes without sickness. These things take generations to develop.

Bingo.  The concept of tabula rasa when it comes to human characteristics is the culprit.  I'd love to identify as 6'4", but genetics is a little too powerful, and nature always wins...

Quote from: mightybrain on July 31, 2021, 09:07:19 PM
I think the woke ideal is to lean 100% nurture and 0% nature. That's why they claim your gender is assigned by your society at birth and your genetics are therefore unimportant. The same applies to their view on race, which is why you can now (as of the Tasha's book) play a dwarf with elf racial abilities or vice versa.

To me this view is nonsensical, because even if I were to have been adopted by Sherpas, I can't simply pick up the genetic modifications I need to survive at high altitudes without sickness. These things take generations to develop.

Not even that. The ideal is you can choose what you want to be on a whim. This isn't 100% nurture, 0% nature, it's 0% nurture, 0% nature, 100% imagined identity. I heard you like fantasy roleplaying, so I put fantasy roleplaying in your fantasy roleplaying.



To switch gears back towards 5e, I find the layout of the 5e PHB pretty odd. Does anyone else agree?

The book describes some basics for how TTRPGs/D&D work, and then asks you to think of a character. Then the first thing the book does is dump you into a deep list of Races & Classes. Only after you wade through 100 pages of crunch does the game introduce the idea of creating a backstory. Then there's a ton of stuff on equipment, multiclassing, feats, and only after we've waded through all that do we get to character attributes.

I get that in a certain sense with 5e, background story & character attributes aren't really all that important, and they are mentioned briefly beforehand, but I find it strange to dump players headfirst into Race & Class selection.

Quote from: Zelen on August 01, 2021, 03:10:14 AM
To switch gears back towards 5e, I find the layout of the 5e PHB pretty odd. Does anyone else agree?

The book describes some basics for how TTRPGs/D&D work, and then asks you to think of a character. Then the first thing the book does is dump you into a deep list of Races & Classes. Only after you wade through 100 pages of crunch does the game introduce the idea of creating a backstory. Then there's a ton of stuff on equipment, multiclassing, feats, and only after we've waded through all that do we get to character attributes.

I get that in a certain sense with 5e, background story & character attributes aren't really all that important, and they are mentioned briefly beforehand, but I find it strange to dump players headfirst into Race & Class selection.

I'll agree with the sentiment. Lord knows I didn't use it for my own book.

To me a logical layout is;
- Introduction & Basic Rules
- Universal Rules (skills, movement, etc.)
- Character Creation (concept, player motivation, character motivation)
- Kind (my equivalent of Race; so what you're born as)
- Background (who you are outside of adventuring)
- Class (your combat/adventuring abilities)
- Equipment

Basically, all the rules you really need in play are in the first 30-40 pages. Everything else is only needed when building/leveling up a character and will be on your character sheet. Character creation is laid out in the order of concept, what you are, how you were raised, how you were trained to adventure and what equipment you use to do it.

I took a similar approach to the GM material;
- Setting up the campaign (concepts; silly or serious, heroic or horror, restrictions/house rules).
- Building the setting
- Building NPCs (and custom opponents)
- Building Adventures
- Adventure Rewards
- Pre-Gen Opponents (i.e. the Monster Manual)

So again... concept, the world, characters who live in the world, things that happen in the world, rewards for PCs who get involved in the world and finally an appendix of opponents to pit the PCs against if you don't want to use the NPC section to build your own.

Quote from: mightybrain on July 31, 2021, 09:07:19 PM
I think the woke ideal is to lean 100% nurture and 0% nature. That's why they claim your gender is assigned by your society at birth and your genetics are therefore unimportant. The same applies to their view on race, which is why you can now (as of the Tasha's book) play a dwarf with elf racial abilities or vice versa.

To me this view is nonsensical, because even if I were to have been adopted by Sherpas, I can't simply pick up the genetic modifications I need to survive at high altitudes without sickness. These things take generations to develop.

This is true ... for genetic differences. Stuff like "Dwarves are resistant to magic" falls into that category. But it seems to me that the majority of racial characteristics described in RPGs (and I'd wager 5e included, but I haven't read it) are not genetic but social. "Dwarves are experts at working stone," or "elves learn to shoot bows real good," or "hobbits like parties."

Since I don't buy into the notion that elves are born shooting a longbow real good, I don't have any problem with learned behavioral traits being associated with the society -- the nurture as it were -- as opposed to the bloodline, or nature.

duplicate

Quote from: Zalman on August 01, 2021, 10:03:56 AM

Quote from: mightybrain on July 31, 2021, 09:07:19 PM
I think the woke ideal is to lean 100% nurture and 0% nature. That's why they claim your gender is assigned by your society at birth and your genetics are therefore unimportant. The same applies to their view on race, which is why you can now (as of the Tasha's book) play a dwarf with elf racial abilities or vice versa.

To me this view is nonsensical, because even if I were to have been adopted by Sherpas, I can't simply pick up the genetic modifications I need to survive at high altitudes without sickness. These things take generations to develop.

This is true ... for genetic differences. Stuff like "Dwarves are resistant to magic" falls into that category. But it seems to me that the majority of racial characteristics described in RPGs (and I'd wager 5e included, but I haven't read it) are not genetic but social. "Dwarves are experts at working stone," or "elves learn to shoot bows real good," or "hobbits like parties."

Since I don't buy into the notion that elves are born shooting a longbow real good, I don't have any problem with learned behavioral traits being associated with the society -- the nurture as it were -- as opposed to the bloodline, or nature.

How much of an elf's excellence with bows is based on training, and how much on the super-human dexterity that is genetic?

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 01, 2021, 12:26:35 PM
How much of an elf's excellence with bows is based on training, and how much on the super-human dexterity that is genetic?

That question would make more sense to me in a game that didn't have a separate vector for measuring dexterity.

Quote from: Zalman on August 01, 2021, 12:33:29 PM

Quote from: Eirikrautha on August 01, 2021, 12:26:35 PM
How much of an elf's excellence with bows is based on training, and how much on the super-human dexterity that is genetic?

That question would make more sense to me in a game that didn't have a separate vector for measuring dexterity.

And gives elves +2 to it?  And what is to say there is not a non-attribute defined hand-eye coordination advantage that comes into play with longbows that elves get?

Quote from: GeekyBugle on July 26, 2021, 08:50:23 PM
What the tin says, if YOU were developing a non-woke "clone" of D&D 5e what would you change, what would you leave as is what would you import from other games?

Well you have to put this back in.