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.

Settings and Genres

Though I've been focused mostly on mechanics, I've also been keeping my eyes open for campaign settings and other tidbits that I hope would make the game more interesting for everyone. My friend Jonathan does his best to keep me supplied with new material to sift through, and loaned me a book based in a setting called the Iron Kingdoms.



As you can tell from the cover art on the character guide, it attempts to be a blend of medieval fantasy and steampunk, and from what I can tell seems to pull it off fairly well. The concept, or at least the concept art, really appeals to me.

So I went through and pulled the weaponry from it to add to my master list of weapons, including the magical/alchemical firearms. The blasting powder and ammunition for these firearms is enclosed in a silk pouch divided into two compartments. The pin pierces the packet, letting the two magical powders mix, and the resulting explosion follows the path of least resistance down the barrel.

This is all very interesting, and very cool to introduce into a world without firearms. But it occurred to me that if interplanetary travel is possible in one's game, then there would no doubt be access to non-magical firearms, as well as much more advanced weaponry. That opens up a terribly large can of worms, since modern firearms would be (I imagine) much more powerful than even the guns in Iron Kingdoms. Bows and crossbows would fall by the wayside, or be relegated to the poorest of adventurers. The game would no longer be medieval, but instead modern fantasy or even science fiction.

I'm not opposed to those settings, mind you. I grew up with medieval fantasy, so I'm more comfortable there, but I've also played in Cyberpunk. My main concern, here, is what my players are interested in. I don't want to end up adding in more advanced technology, whether it's science or magic based (Any technology sufficiently advanced etc., etc.), and especially if it's to the detriment of the existing weaponry available, if my players would be happier retaining a medieval feel rather than a renaissance, Victorian-era, modern, post-modern apocalyptic, or space cowboy genre.

Since Jonathan provided me with the Iron Kingdoms source material, I can fairly safely assume he's comfortable with a certain level of steampunkery creeping into the game (as well as a necropolis teeming with undead, but that's another story). Knowing my wife, I'm sure she'd be comfortable with a touch of steampunk as well. So I feel mostly safe in adding in the IK weaponry. The full setting, however, doesn't mesh well with the rest of what I've set up. And I really don't want to mess with the clockwork warmachines at this juncture. So I'm still trying to dig for campaign and setting ideas, at least to start off with.

I'd like to be able to roll with any punches the group would throw at me, switch from one world/setting to another, one quest-line to another in midstream without flinching. I remember my mother telling me how she used to set up elaborate campaigns, just to have the party decide, "Nah, let's go that way instead." So now she drops groups in an established safe zone, and lets them choose where to go. Her home-brewed campaign setting, though, encompasses not just worlds, but alternate dimensions. It's large enough that it is still mostly unexplored territory. I end up feeling rather intimidated when trying to choose where to start adventuring.

So I know I need to start off small. Limit my focus to one area, with a handful of low-level campaigns, and build outwards and/or upwards from there. But I want to make sure that, despite it being a small area/low-level, it will grab the interest of my players. To that end...

Anyone have a favorite setting, genre, or concept they'd love to have a chance to play in?