PDA

View Full Version : Race Roles: Good or Bad?



Mr. Mask
2013-06-21, 09:08 PM
In a lot of games, races (playable species) tend to fall into certain roles they can or can't, should or shouldn't play as. Sometimes, it's an outright restriction, like MMOs where certain classes are race-specific. Other times... it just is completely non-optimal to play a goblin sorcerer instead of a goblin wizard.


How much sense do you feel this makes? Do you think it is a negative thing, restricting players' creativity as to what they can play? Can you think of examples that show this can be a good idea, or examples which subvert this trope?

TuggyNE
2013-06-21, 09:29 PM
Outright saying "no, you can't be an X if you're a Y" is pretty stupid and artificial in nearly all cases; why would it be impossible?

Giving different races different natural tendencies, though, works somewhat better, as long as there's a good reason for everything. For example, 3.x dwarves' darkvision and lack of movement speed penalty in medium/heavy armor are both tightly mapped to the fiction behind that, whereas 3.x elves depicted as great wizards with no Int bonus, spell penetration bonus, CL bonus, or indeed anything but Wizard "favored class" is less so.

Simplicity is generally desirable, and if you can make good emergent gameplay out of that, so much the better.

TheIronGolem
2013-06-21, 09:40 PM
Stereotypes like "dwarves don't like magic" are okay, and in fact can be quite useful story-wise, since it makes it interesting when you do see a dwarven wizard. Look at Discworld characters; Pratchett makes a habit of establishing racial norms and then bringing in a character who completely goes against them (or often, juxtaposes the defiance of certain norms with implacable adherence to others, to great comic effect). Defying the stereotype isn't possible until you have an established stereotype to defy.

However, unless there is an incredibly good story reason, outright restrictions on race/class combos are an abomination. Tell me that the Holy Order Of Sacred Warrior Guys doesn't take halflings, and I can roll with that, but if I want to play a halfling paladin then I should be able to play one even if he isn't recognized as such in the world.

Mutazoia
2013-06-21, 09:52 PM
Tell me that the Holy Order Of Sacred Warrior Guys doesn't take halflings, and I can roll with that, but if I want to play a halfling paladin then I should be able to play one even if he isn't recognized as such in the world.

I can just picture a 4' tall character, on a heavy warhorse, carrying a 14' lance....

angry_bear
2013-06-21, 10:25 PM
It really depends on the setting and the kind of story that the GM and the players want to tell in my opinion. If the GM says that Elves can't be divine casters just because there's never been one in their setting yet, I'd argue that I want to play an Elf druid. If he lays out a semi detailed back story about how the gods turned their backs on the elves because of a crime, and the campaign is about a group seeking to redeem their people, then that's a different situation entirely.

Marnath
2013-06-21, 10:25 PM
I can just picture a 4' tall character, on a heavy warhorse, carrying a 14' lance....

Halfings are 2' tall.

Xuc Xac
2013-06-21, 10:30 PM
I can just picture a 4' tall character, on a heavy warhorse, carrying a 14' lance....

Yeah. That's as ridiculous as a human riding an elephant...

Mutazoia
2013-06-21, 11:06 PM
Yeah. That's as ridiculous as a human riding an elephant...

A human, riding an Elephant carrying a 26' lance maybe (not riding in a howda but using a normal saddle)

TuggyNE
2013-06-21, 11:11 PM
A human, riding an Elephant carrying a 26' lance maybe (not riding in a howda but using a normal saddle)

Why would you use a normal saddle?

Mutazoia
2013-06-21, 11:15 PM
Why would you use a normal saddle?

I doubt a 4' Hafling is going to ride a 17 hand horse to begin with...but if he does there's no such thing as a howda for a warhorse. SO to keep Xuc Xac's comparison true to form our human in the above example uses a normal saddle.

(looses so much when you have to explain it lol)

Mutazoia
2013-06-21, 11:16 PM
Halfings are 2' tall.

Even better lol

Kitten Champion
2013-06-21, 11:18 PM
I don't care about the mechanical aspects, since unlike in MMOs they can be ignored, and should if it makes the RP better. I'm more annoyed by the stereotypes behind the races pushing people into Boring McGeneric Tolkien characters or some super-witty subversion thereof. The race specific paths just serve to reinforce the Gimli-ness of your fighter Dwarf.

I think anything significant about a character's racial heritage should come down to their physiology. Otherwise it comes down to the culture you were born into, which you'd need a very good reason why that's universal.

TuggyNE
2013-06-22, 12:06 AM
I doubt a 4' Hafling is going to ride a 17 hand horse to begin with...but if he does there's no such thing as a howda for a warhorse.

Nor is there any such thing as a halfling, 4' or 2'. Given this important difference between worlds, can you guarantee not merely that there are no howdahs for horses, but that there would be none if halflings existed and felt like riding horses?

Mutazoia
2013-06-22, 12:12 AM
Nor is there any such thing as a halfling, 4' or 2'. Given this important difference between worlds, can you guarantee not merely that there are no howdahs for horses, but that there would be none if halflings existed and felt like riding horses?

lol NVM...obviously the visual is not translating.

snoopy13a
2013-06-22, 12:32 AM
It depends on the world and how multicultural the various cities and countries are.

A kingdom that is 99% dwarf (with the other 1% being ambassadors, merchants, etc) will have dwarf fighters, dwarf clerics, dwarf rangers, dwarf wizards, etc. Every social role will be filled by a dwarf.

On the other hand, a kingdom that has a diverse population may have some species gravitate towards certain fields--either by choice, aptitude, or because of prejudice by the government or society. For example, if the national wizard guild is run by elves, non-elves may have difficulty becoming wizards. Or perhaps a human-run kingdom only allows human clerics in its temples. On the other hand, a paladin order may be open for all but has few, if any, gnomes because the gnomes in the nation prefer safer careers.

Finally, there are a few classes that are going to have members of all species no matter what: rogue comes to mind. There will also be sorcerers and bards of every species since sorcery tends to in-born and every culture enjoys music.

Ravens_cry
2013-06-22, 12:43 AM
Fighting person is another. Priest would be another I would say.
I really hate it when the restriction is explained as social.As a hypothetical, sure, it might be frowned upon for the local dwarf equivalent to become an arcane caster, but outright 'no'? Why?

TheCountAlucard
2013-06-22, 01:38 AM
This feels relatively system-specific. Classless systems are generally organic enough to allow for easier handling of these issues.

Do you want to be a troll in Shadowrun? The fact that you're more than two meters tall and have enough muscle to flip a car on your own makes you a pretty deadly melee combatant, but it doesn't do anything for your hacking abilities. Still, nothing's stopping you from making a troll hacker; the not-crappiness of your commlink and progs are going to factor into your effectiveness there far more than your race. Likewise, elves in Shadowrun have a higher cap on their Charisma score than humans do, but you're not a chump for playing a human face over an elf one, nor a human beatstick over a troll hitter.

Gamgee
2013-06-22, 01:48 AM
For the most part stupid, but in some situations I feel there are exceptions. Usually of a fluff based nature, but sometimes the mechanics of a particularity bizarre race might defy it form being something.

I'm not necessarily just talking D&D's here.

Xuc Xac
2013-06-22, 02:36 AM
I doubt a 4' Hafling is going to ride a 17 hand horse to begin with...

Yes, short people can't ride horses. That's why jockeys in the real world are all 6'3" or taller.

Ravens_cry
2013-06-22, 03:53 AM
Yes, short people can't ride horses. That's why jockeys in the real world are all 6'3" or taller.
Not to mention that it was young children who rode camels in camel racing. Now it's robots.

The Rose Dragon
2013-06-22, 06:53 AM
Dragon Age dwarves cannot be mages. They can, through study, enchant items (which only the Tranquil and Sandal, the Great Avatar of the Maker, are capable of otherwise), but they will never be able to tap the Fade and cast a spell. This is not a cultural restriction, it's a physiological one. A dwarf raised in human lands will not be able to cast a spell any more than a dwarf raised underground, especially since mages are born, not taught. Incidentally, dwarves also don't dream in normal situations. It takes powerful magic to force them into the Fade, which is also the land of dreams, since they are also naturally resistant to magic due to their proximity to lyrium. This also has the side effect of dwarves relying much more on technology and engineering than the other races (a trait shared by the qunari, who distrust their own mages), such as lyrium explosives and crossbows.

Any hard restriction on what a given species or race can do requires three things: one, a reason that isn't merely psychological or sociological; two, corresponding changes to their culture compared to others'; three, a mechanical compensation if you want to keep the species balanced.

Non-optimal choices are a different matter. In Exalted, playing a djala as a warrior that hefts around a grand daiklave is inefficient, since even a djala that has physical attributes as Primary will be lacking in those attributes and health levels compared to a baseline human. That limitation can be overcome by spending XP on Attributes, but that is still spending resources to get to a point others started at. However, it is still possible. There is no rule saying that a djala can't buy and attune to a grand daiklave. If the djala is willing to reduce his Dexterity or Stamina to get Strength 3, all power to him. In fact, I'd kind of call non-optimal choices being viable a good thing, since it forces a player to both deliberately go for it, and try hard to make it work.

awa
2013-06-22, 09:23 AM
I agree Racial restrictions are fine when they make sense. Particularly for magical classes a race with strong innate magic resistance might just not be able to use magic or a race with no emotions might not be able to be a barbarian and i have no problem with that.

I guess for me it comes down to the same thing it always does when i hear a game has lots of restrictions on what material you can use to make your character and that is does it make the game better the world more interesting if so restrict away if not maybe rethink it.


Although i do disagree that the races need a bonus to make up for it, the reason for that is a penalty that never comes up is not a penalty. A class restriction by its very nature will not hinder a player. It may hinder a species or a nation but not the player under normal circumstances.

The Rose Dragon
2013-06-22, 09:32 AM
I'm thinking of classless point-buy systems, which is what I'm used to most, where a hard restriction is usually signified by a mechanical flaw. If a race is incapable of doing something everyone else can do, such as, say, swimming, because they are far denser than normal, you need to compensate for it somehow in case a situation comes up where swimming would make things easier. The bigger and more common the restriction, the larger the compensation.

awa
2013-06-22, 09:40 AM
If swimming is expected to come up that's valid but if the game is set entirely in cities/ space stations/ deserts/ anywhere where swimming is not an issue then that flaw is not worth points it's just fluff which is not necessarily a bad thing just not worth free points.

Its like having a 5 year life span is not a penalty to a character where the entire game will happen over the course of 1 year

Emmerask
2013-06-22, 09:43 AM
It sometimes makes just sense that a race would not be able to learn certain things.
So if its done well then its good, if its just BECAUSE with no reason that makes sense given its bad.

For example a race that canīt touch and cant be touched by magic (ie completely immune to all magic) could not become wizards that makes complete sense and is good (in everything else they are practically human so the exception that is born without this immunity is just a normal human for example).

Humans not being able to become Rangers because they live in cities!11 would be bad because maybe that particular human lives in the woods so why not ranger^^

There are some gray areas for example a human who wants to become a cleric of the "I only like elves" god, so usually humans cant become cleric of that god...
but maybe the pc is the one exception...

The Rose Dragon
2013-06-22, 09:46 AM
If swimming is expected to come up that's valid but if the game is set entirely in cities/ space stations/ deserts/ anywhere where swimming is not an issue then that flaw is not worth points it's just fluff which is not necessarily a bad thing just not worth free points.

And (good) point buy systems don't give points unless the GM thinks the flaw is relevant, so... mission accomplished?

Devils_Advocate
2013-06-23, 10:03 PM
In the real world, by which I mean on the planet Earth, which species you are is pretty important, and any non-human has considerably different capabilities than the typical human.

I see no need for science fiction and fantasy creatures that humans can communicate with to all be slightly different humans that aren't called humans, nor do I see any need to restrict player characters to being such creatures. That seems a lot less inspiring than providing other options.

For example, dragons might be big and strong and be able to fly and breathe fire, while humans are good with tools and stuff because they have opposable thumbs. This creates an obvious division of labor between dragons and humans, which allows each species to be more efficient and accomplish things it otherwise couldn't with the other's help. Which in turn gives humans and dragons reason to cooperate, even if they don't particularly like each other.

And if there's also a species of little people who have the ability to use magic or psychic powers or whatever, which neither humans nor dragons have, then there are even more opportunities for everyone involved, and things get even more complex and interesting.

On the other hand, the less functional difference there is between playable species, the less reason there is to have them, instead of just one species with a bunch of different cultures.

Perhaps the best part about letting "race" mean something is there's then no need for "classes". If you already have a real difference between characters that defines what sorts of things they're capable of doing, you don't need a weird fake difference. No need to work around the made-up difference's weird fakeness with "multiclassing" or whatever if you don't have it in the first place!

valadil
2013-06-23, 10:19 PM
I don't think there should be hard lines restricting players from playing a certain character. But I think there should be suggestions that indicate which characters are more likely to be successful. If a player really wants to be a dwarven sorcerer, that's fine, but he should know it's suboptimal.

Mr. Mask
2013-06-23, 10:34 PM
What do you all think of things like being allowed to play a gnoll wizard, but with the knowledge you would be much better playing as some other race?

Often, I wish games could work so that a gnoll wizard was viable, even if difficult to achieve that viability. Something where, even if they're less apt at the primary function of a wizard (INT and spellcasting), their greater strength could become a utility which makes them better at secondary roles (melee, or gish, or whatever) or allows them to creatively make use of their combination of strength (like if they could enchant their teeth and claws or something).

Ravens_cry
2013-06-23, 11:19 PM
I don't think there should be hard lines restricting players from playing a certain character. But I think there should be suggestions that indicate which characters are more likely to be successful. If a player really wants to be a dwarven sorcerer, that's fine, but he should know it's suboptimal.
And that's fine. 16 is more than enough, especially if you don't go for spells with saves. I do like that Pathfinder has options for sorcerers to use every mental attribute as their main stat.