Forums related to racial roles

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-06-08 21:23:21
Converted from Phorums BB System

There are a couple of recent forums concerned with racial roles. You may want to recall these, they are:

For a discussion of races in fantasy rpgs http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=188153
and the next one on minotaurs http://forum.rpg.net/showthread.php?t=187036

Please note that I'll correct "Satyre" to "Satyr" in future columns.

Sergio

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Darkall at 2005-06-12 05:24:24
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Their eyes only show the pupil and the dark brown iris."
Does this mean that they don't have whites to their eye? Humans only show pupil, and iris as well- and have white eye-balls.

Also, why such di-morphism among satyrs? Why do the females “have” to be so much more human appearing, and so different in behavior from the males? Or to put it another way, what traits do males and females share- other than similar feet and eyes?

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-06-12 11:13:43
Converted from Phorums BB System

"Does this mean that they don't have whites to their eye?"

Yes.

"Humans only show pupil, and iris as well- and have white eye-balls."

This is one of the things that strikes humans when they see Hoofed Ladies: They don't have visible white eye-balls.

"Also, why such di-morphism among satyrs?"

Because I like it! Actually one of things I like to play with when designing races is with the similarities/differences between genders. I have a race that has almost no differences and I have another race that has even a stronger di-morphism than satyrs/hoofed ladies. (Mind you, I have not the first to have played with it, far from that. For instance, it is a staple of pulp fiction with its races of gorgeous women coupled with primitive/monkey-like men.)

Now, it all has to do with differences among sexes. Some of these may be physical, others psychological, and most often than not social. If we look at things this way...

"Why do the females “have” to be so much more human appearing"

It is part of our real world experience. The difference between sexes, I mean. On the other hand, I didn't think about females being so much more human appearing than satyrs! My view of Hoofed Ladies/Satyrs is not shaped by a comparision with humans, maybe because In a sense both are humans, but also because I don't look at humans (in the sense or real world humans) as the norm because I see too much diversity among ourselves to focus on a norm.

"and so different in behavior from the males?"

Once more, because I like di-morphism... but also because my take on the hoofed ladies/satyrs pair is inspired by a real world culture, a culture that disapeared some two centuries ago (even if it still has its mark on the part of the world where it existed in the past).

That culture had a marked social di-morphism (if this sentence makes any sense). When I designed the Hoofed Ladies I picked the legend of the Women with Goat Feet, mixed with that real world culture I'm referring to, and put the satyrs on the other side of the equation. It has all to do with the way I work out different races.

"Or to put it another way, what traits do males and females share- other than similar feet and eyes?"

The plain truth is that I didn't think much about this. I present them as different races because from the eyes of a complete outsider they seem to be different races, specially because there seems to be so few interaction between them (satyrs don't make a point of publicizing their visits to the hoofed ladies). Maybe they share smells, sounds and expressions that are hard to pick by outsiders...

Let me put it this way, I'm writting a rpg, not an antropological or physiological treatise on those "races". Certainly, they will share a lot, but is it important to play? My take is tha no - at least at this moment, it may change if I give it some more thought - from an rpg point of view they are alien enough to be treated as separate races, that's all.

Sergio

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Darkall at 2005-06-13 17:08:45
Converted from Phorums BB System

Ok,
I can see that you did it for the fun of having a contrast. One race different, one race similar.

But, it would help to have some reason "why" they are so different. That way anyone who wants to run in that world can have something to work with- I hate coming up with an explination, and then having a source book provide a competely different one.

The information on the "hooved ladies" of legend is cool (never heard of it before), and useful. Having the why gives a GM a "hook" to work with.

And, if you know how they are similar AND how they are different it gives the players something to work with. And also, knowing players, they will want to play against type eventually. If you know the "why" it gives them a reason (or excuse) to explain their "atypical" character.

For example- Dritz, the "Good" Drow. I can't tell you how many player wanted to play a unique atypical Drow- 2 or 3 in a just one party.

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-06-13 20:23:08
Converted from Phorums BB System

Thanks for the input Darkall, it is helping me a lot to think about how to present fantasy races.

You see, I have my take on these races because I have my own notes on a fantasy setting where I will use them. It's a paralel project to Rough Quests. Yet, if it is to be a generic game system I've better not force my solution on people or it stops to be generic fantasy. But if it is so I can't work with a connection between hoofed ladies and satyrs...

Maybe I can start with the original presentation of the races, and next add the adaptation for my game world, using the same as the example setting in the game book. What do you think about this?

Of course, at that stage I need to give an explanation to the connection between HL and S, and how and why they differ so much (I also have my notes on this).

All of this is tied to the way the rules and setting are delivered. I'm a big fan of the Players Book / GM Book paradigm (where the last one includes both setting, presentation of rules from the GM POV and creatures). This means that the PB would include minimal info about the setting and the same would be presented as just for exemplification.

Sergio

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Darkall at 2005-06-14 04:02:51
Converted from Phorums BB System

Hmmm.
Well, having a players handbook and a gm's is ok. Even better if you put "rumors" that explain the situation, with the truth in the gm's guide.
For example, “Young men, who spend lots of time wondering what is under those covering robes, speculate that the ladies have a cure that calms their lust. The enclaves cultivate the fruit, or spice, or something, which makes them less ‘randy’ than the men. But, wandering Ladies may not have access to the cure, and are the subject of much interest to those young men.”
Or, “It is believed that wandering Ladies are inherently more rebellious than the Enclave Ladies. The Ladies in the Enclaves are the more vulnerable to social pressure, and hence less ‘randy’ than the men- because the other women are watching and judging them. But, wandering Ladies are not, and may behave completely differently. Or, so go the rumors.”
And then, in the GM’s Guide the real reason comes out…. That way, if the truth comes out the players at least have the excuse that “they were just acting according to expectations.”

[RPGnet Columns]

Post originally by Sergio Mascarenhas at 2005-06-14 05:45:06
Converted from Phorums BB System

That's a good take. In any case, it will all depend how much I decide to put from my setting in the Rough Quests books. If I decide on a more generic presentation of the game system there will less of the setting.

In any case, right now my main concern is the rules. There are other RPGnet columns for setting development, so it's better for me to be as light as possible on setting issues. As you will see, the coming rules will discuss attributes and so on. The races will only be called for in this context.

Sergio