Once again I'm trying to tackle the question of how much or how little difference race selection should make in the game. It seems like any explanation for giving bonuses or detriments, whether to stats, skills, or classes, is based on an attempt to propagate a stereotype of the race in question. Yet this is generally only helpful if you intend to play to the stereotype, and most players I know like to break them instead. Further, if you are playing in a system that allows you to place your ability scores as you like, rather than as you rolled them, then you're already optimizing for the class you want to play, and can manipulate the placement to either offset disadvantages or boost bonuses.
Back to the stereotyping issue: "Everyone" knows humans jack all the trades, elves are better at everything except being clerics and taking hits, dwarves are better at hitting things, getting hit, and making stuff, and sometimes being clerics, halflings are good at being sneaky, stealing anything not bolted down, and in some cases being clerics, while gnomes are the quirky alchemically-inclined arcanists. If anyone plays a half-orc, it's always optimized for bashing things. There are sub-races that break some of these rules, but generally speaking you don't see gnome barbarians, dwarven wizards, or half-orc bards. There are various "reasons" given for these things, but without the setting's background it more or less seems arbitrary. It gives a bit of flavor, another choice for the player, while still remaining (in theory) numerically balanced.
I guess what I'm getting into is flavor vs. substance. Ice cream is ice cream, but choosing chocolate, vanilla, or any of the other 47 flavors is what makes the experience personalized, unique, and memorable. Yet when it comes to race, what would be the ultimate difference between playing an elf (for example) rather than a human? If you're already placing stats as you want them, you can put your high numbers in Dex and Int if you want to play to the widespread stereotypes. Is it enough to simply state "my character is an elf?" Is roleplay the major factor, or does there need to be a mechanical variance in order to really feel like you made a defining choice in the character's development?
I spoke with my wife about some of this, and came to the conclusion that I don't like assigning racial stereotypes. Considering I'm a Sociology major, I guess this shouldn't be a surprise. I'd rather leave it up to the player to determine what stereotype, if any, they want to play to or break away from. But if there are no defined norms or stereotypes to begin with, then the player has nothing to guide him or her. Stereotypes and norms would only come about by having enough player-created characters to build them organically.
Overall, I've decided that it isn't within the scope of mechanics-building to define these things, but in setting or world-building. It is the campaign world which determines what is the norm, and mechanics are altered to suit. I could build a world where dwarves are the penultimate magic-users, elves have developed steam technology, halflings can take a severe beating and still keep going, and humans are terrible at everything except being clerics. Sure, this flies in the face of most fantasy literature, and I'd have to come up with some fairly solid reasoning and explanation for why things were that way, but there's nothing stopping me from doing so. The biggest problem with this, though, is that if I provide a setting with norms that are too different from what players expect, it will likely be (at least at first) confusing and may put them off if they don't enjoy it. If someone expects chocolate ice cream, and gets pistachio instead, they probably won't be happy.
On the far side of the moon, I remember one of my gaming books mentioning that, yes, the setting does have set and discriminatory gender roles, but that's just part of the game society and is something the character will have to deal with, either by trying to blend in or by fighting the system and trying to enact change. By creating norms and stereotypes, I'd also be providing a social contract for the characters to either adhere to or challenge, which can make for really good RP, but doesn't necessarily help me test my game mechanics.
Okay, I've gotten sidetracked here. Determining whether this is a system issue or a setting issue doesn't help me to decide what sorts of mechanical differences I should be applying.
Size is basic, and easy. Regardless of what a race is called or whatever abilities it may have, its relative size to humans is something that doesn't bug me to include. It determines non-magical weaponry available, and by 3rd Ed. also has an effect on armor class. Also by 3rd Ed. it has an effect on movement speed, and my friend brought up the effect of size on reach as well, but that tends to get into positional combat tactics that I was trying to avoid, for the most part, in system construction. There is a part of me that it appeals to, but it also can slow combat down in contrast with the system I grew up on.
Various vision types are available, with variations between editions to draw upon. It still touches on pre-existing stereotypes of what defines a race, but it's easier for me to deal with than stat boosts.
Bonuses with weapons or skills and stat bonuses, and even discounted experience costs for certain classes based on race, are things that would make mechanical differences, but are the strongest "offenders" as far as stereotyping go. Is it somehow inherently flawed or wrong if every race is capable of being just as much a jack-of-all-lanterns as humans are? Should humans have some sort of specialty as well?
Too many questions, and I've run out of pebbles for now.
