Racial Diversity in Gaming

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.

Namaste

If, a year ago, someone brought up 3D movies in conversation, the first image to pop into my head would have been the cliche 1950's crowd with the two-tone red and blue cardboard glasses. 3D was a gimmick, used to hype sub-standard movies in order to bring in audiences.

No more.

James Cameron has taken 3D technology and used it for what it should always have been: to provide a fully immersive experience within a fully detailed environment. He took a film that was fully capable of standing on its own, and enhanced it, rather than making 3D the sole selling point. 3D technology, while it may not become the standard viewing method for some time, now has a benchmark. All 3D films, probably for at least the next decade, will be compared to Avatar to gauge their opulence and detail.

Now to the film itself. Spoilers will likely abound. You have been warned.

Where to begin?

The flora and fauna of Pandora is perfectly balanced between alien and familiar. You may not know what something is called, but it looks (and acts) familiar enough that you know what it's Earth-based counterpart is, or could be, with some few exceptions.

Just by looking at the ocular anatomy, you can tell that this world is much more dangerous than Earth. Practically every creature on the planet has two sets of eyes, one facing forward and one more to the sides. If you remember your Biology, forward facing eyes are the mark of a predator, whereas side-facing eyes are a typical prey's defensive mechanism. Everything on that planet, then, is both a predator and prey. Even the Na'vi, though they lack the second set of eyes, because that lack is made up for by their unusually large, sensitive, swiveling ears.

The wildlife isn't all that's familiar. Plot elements are similar to things seen elsewhere, and although this has been used as a criticism to harp on the plotline's predictability, I believe Mr. Cameron did it right. He gave us familiar elements to associate with, first off so that we wouldn't be overwhelmed by what was unfamiliar, and second so that we would not miss too much if our eyes were overwhelmed with the details put into this fantastic world.

Still, here's what I was reminded of: Linking to the animals? Matrix, jacking in, which was further reinforced by the explanation of how everything was linked in an electric network. The flying creatures, who only bond to one rider? Dragonriders of Pern. The term "I see you" is very closely related to the one-word title up above. And the general storyline and message in general? Fern Gully for grown-ups.

This doesn't belittle the film, in my eyes. Yes, I've seen elements of it elsewhere, but not blended in this manner. And quite frankly it's about time we adults were reminded of the direction our world is going. I don't even necessarily mean what we're doing to destroy the planet. I'll leave that sermon to Al Gore. What I'm talking about is our direction as a society: our might-makes-right attitude, using violence as a default means to the end we desire. We can't even get along with other humans, so what possible hope do we have of peaceful relations with non-human sentient life?

Fern Gully started from the position that the Earth, that Nature, was salvageable, if we humans could do right by it. Mr. Cameron doesn't even give us that much credit, and I can't say I disagree. Avatar starts with Earth being devoid of Nature, perhaps completely sapped of all life, and only gives us the message that, despite our overwhelming majority of asshats, humanity can still be redeemed by the actions of those few who are willing to do right by Life in general, rather than being sheep led to the slaughter by those who had enough greed and ambition to gain apparent leadership.

I saw an article, the day before I saw the movie, that told of a trend among those who saw Avatar. Apparently, there are a number of people who have, since viewing it, become depressed or even suicidal: depressed because they could not live on Pandora, suicidal in the hope that they might be reborn as a Na'vi. It's nothing new that people who come to associate with and love a world they experience through fiction have a desire to live there, or be the people they've read about or seen in the movie. I know I spent a good amount of time in my teen years wishing I actually had a Pernese dragon to ride, so I understand the wish that Pandora were real.

And maybe it is, or a place much like it. We can't, at this point, prove its lack of existence any more than we can prove it does exist. But for the sake of that place, should it be real, I hope we never find it.