>>If elves appeared from the shed tears of the gods (or whatever), then maybe they get +1 with bows because that's what the gods want,<<
Exactly. In World Tree, the spell Fire Kitten is easier than it should be for what it does, because the god in charge of it likes cats. That game also hardwires racism: there are the Prime Races, and then everything else. Which can be a point of play if people want to explore that. Because Creator Gods, that's why.
>>If elves are good with bows because of their superior senses and hand-eye coordination, are they also good at targeting spells? What about delicate artisanship? Why is it just bows?<<
Well, aim is a bit different. I can aim pretty well, but can't draw worth a crap. The targeting system is kind of its own little thing. But it works with a bow, a gun, a camera, or just alerting to movement in general. Modern computer programs drive me batshit with all their moving, blinking, whirring distractions. Imagine if elves have high targeting skills and dwarves ... fidget when they aren't making something. So much racial tension could be fixed by giving the dwarf a fidget toy and pointing the elf in a different direction!
>> I mean, the Doylist reason is because Legolas used a bow. If Legolas had thrown spears elves would get +1 to that.<<
I think that is the reason, and it is an example of a surface-in construction flaw.
>>It's just a personal preference for settings that don't have activist gods that makes me want another basis for a language system.<<
Anthropology, linguistics, sociology, neurology -- you've got lots of other ooptions. I often use a mix for languages. So for instance, if I have elves, they have clusters by broad areas; there might be a forest set, a prairie set, a mountain set, and so on each influenced by their environment.
Then too, consider whether and how much people move around. Some places really don't, and if you only have one population, they might speak all the same language. If they mix then you get a lot more variety.
I was outlining a worldbuild for a class in a poem I was writing. Three continents and an island cluster around an inland sea, several ethic variations of humans, and a couple of other humanoid races. Based on everyone traveling around that coast, there was lots of mixing there, and thus light-to-medium skin tones based on who was where -- but toward the outer edges of the continents, much less mixing and darker average tones. I was able to do that because I have an idea about how populations can move and mingle, and it makes sense because there's an explanation built right into it. Ethnic dynamics because of geopolitics.
>>but if the game is such that you would need to ban non-Jews from even playing it part of it, hmm. The solution is to find better players who will be able to properly engage with the material.<<
Exactly. You need players who can handle challenging topics, or you need at simpler game. There's nothing wrong with "I just wanna blow shit up" as long as everyone's on the same page. I had very insightful gamers, usually.
>> but historically they're usually not a language of daily use--educated Jews knew Hebrew but they didn't speak it to each other, they wrote letters in it to people who didn't speak their local language--or they're a language imposed by some kind of empire on the populace.<<
Usually the lingua franca is either that of the most influential military culture, or it is a trade language. The third, rather farther behind, is a scholars' language like Latin, Hebrew, or French (which was at different times also an imperial and a trade language). Wikipedia used to have a fantastic historic list of world languages with notes about that stuff, but it got edited out. >_< I'd been using it to list languages that my immortal (from human stock) characters would know, or at least a subset illustrating those. It's in the Wayback Machine though.
>> The fact that Common is humans' native language in D&D-land implies things about the setting that no setting designer ever seems to follow up on.<<
I think they just did it because they're humanocentric and it's easy. They want to play, not think about worldbuilding itself as a hobby. Me, I got pulled into gaming because my friends wanted to play in my storyworld. AD&D was a kludge for that, but we were determined enough that it mostly worked.
>>I've heard of it before, but to me (speaking personally) the system is too simple for me to really enjoy engaging with it. For some people that's a benefit, but I like mechanical complexity in my games and don't mind different resolution systems for different types of actions.<<
It's vital to find a game engine that fits how your brain works and what you enjoy doing. The only thing I really love about game statistics is the different-shaped dice and their probabilities. Complex tables are not my thing. But this is why we need different games. You'd have more fun with some miniature-inspired, detailed game engines. World Tree has some interesting complexities too. Me, I like an elegant and flexible system without too many numbers for me to fuck up.
>>but really didn't like the way the system made every action boil down to "Attack, Defend, Overcome, Create an Advantage" which were mostly just +2 on a die roll. It was boring to play even if the setting was excellent.<<
Alas!
This is why I recommend a team build if possible. Get a linguist, a scientist, a game theory expert, at least one mathematician, an artist, a writer -- you'll be pretty well set up. The worldbuilding class I was writing about typically aims for a balance of 3 artists, 3 writers, and 3 random other specialties (or similar for different sizes of groups). It's the random ones that influence the build because if you have a linguist you'll get languages, if you have a geologist you'll get a cool map that makes sense, if you have a biologist you'll get extra-awesome monsters, etc. Credit to Coyote & Crow, they assembled a brilliant team of writers, artists, and game experts who did a fantastic build. But in trying to anticipate and solve certain social problems, they created a lot of others.
Re: Thoughts
Exactly. In World Tree, the spell Fire Kitten is easier than it should be for what it does, because the god in charge of it likes cats. That game also hardwires racism: there are the Prime Races, and then everything else. Which can be a point of play if people want to explore that. Because Creator Gods, that's why.
>>If elves are good with bows because of their superior senses and hand-eye coordination, are they also good at targeting spells? What about delicate artisanship? Why is it just bows?<<
Well, aim is a bit different. I can aim pretty well, but can't draw worth a crap. The targeting system is kind of its own little thing. But it works with a bow, a gun, a camera, or just alerting to movement in general. Modern computer programs drive me batshit with all their moving, blinking, whirring distractions. Imagine if elves have high targeting skills and dwarves ... fidget when they aren't making something. So much racial tension could be fixed by giving the dwarf a fidget toy and pointing the elf in a different direction!
>> I mean, the Doylist reason is because Legolas used a bow. If Legolas had thrown spears elves would get +1 to that.<<
I think that is the reason, and it is an example of a surface-in construction flaw.
>>It's just a personal preference for settings that don't have activist gods that makes me want another basis for a language system.<<
Anthropology, linguistics, sociology, neurology -- you've got lots of other ooptions. I often use a mix for languages. So for instance, if I have elves, they have clusters by broad areas; there might be a forest set, a prairie set, a mountain set, and so on each influenced by their environment.
Then too, consider whether and how much people move around. Some places really don't, and if you only have one population, they might speak all the same language. If they mix then you get a lot more variety.
I was outlining a worldbuild for a class in a poem I was writing. Three continents and an island cluster around an inland sea, several ethic variations of humans, and a couple of other humanoid races. Based on everyone traveling around that coast, there was lots of mixing there, and thus light-to-medium skin tones based on who was where -- but toward the outer edges of the continents, much less mixing and darker average tones. I was able to do that because I have an idea about how populations can move and mingle, and it makes sense because there's an explanation built right into it. Ethnic dynamics because of geopolitics.
>>but if the game is such that you would need to ban non-Jews from even playing it part of it, hmm. The solution is to find better players who will be able to properly engage with the material.<<
Exactly. You need players who can handle challenging topics, or you need at simpler game. There's nothing wrong with "I just wanna blow shit up" as long as everyone's on the same page. I had very insightful gamers, usually.
>> but historically they're usually not a language of daily use--educated Jews knew Hebrew but they didn't speak it to each other, they wrote letters in it to people who didn't speak their local language--or they're a language imposed by some kind of empire on the populace.<<
Usually the lingua franca is either that of the most influential military culture, or it is a trade language. The third, rather farther behind, is a scholars' language like Latin, Hebrew, or French (which was at different times also an imperial and a trade language). Wikipedia used to have a fantastic historic list of world languages with notes about that stuff, but it got edited out. >_< I'd been using it to list languages that my immortal (from human stock) characters would know, or at least a subset illustrating those. It's in the Wayback Machine though.
>> The fact that Common is humans' native language in D&D-land implies things about the setting that no setting designer ever seems to follow up on.<<
I think they just did it because they're humanocentric and it's easy. They want to play, not think about worldbuilding itself as a hobby. Me, I got pulled into gaming because my friends wanted to play in my storyworld. AD&D was a kludge for that, but we were determined enough that it mostly worked.
>>I've heard of it before, but to me (speaking personally) the system is too simple for me to really enjoy engaging with it. For some people that's a benefit, but I like mechanical complexity in my games and don't mind different resolution systems for different types of actions.<<
It's vital to find a game engine that fits how your brain works and what you enjoy doing. The only thing I really love about game statistics is the different-shaped dice and their probabilities. Complex tables are not my thing. But this is why we need different games. You'd have more fun with some miniature-inspired, detailed game engines. World Tree has some interesting complexities too. Me, I like an elegant and flexible system without too many numbers for me to fuck up.
>>but really didn't like the way the system made every action boil down to "Attack, Defend, Overcome, Create an Advantage" which were mostly just +2 on a die roll. It was boring to play even if the setting was excellent.<<
Alas!
This is why I recommend a team build if possible. Get a linguist, a scientist, a game theory expert, at least one mathematician, an artist, a writer -- you'll be pretty well set up. The worldbuilding class I was writing about typically aims for a balance of 3 artists, 3 writers, and 3 random other specialties (or similar for different sizes of groups). It's the random ones that influence the build because if you have a linguist you'll get languages, if you have a geologist you'll get a cool map that makes sense, if you have a biologist you'll get extra-awesome monsters, etc. Credit to Coyote & Crow, they assembled a brilliant team of writers, artists, and game experts who did a fantastic build. But in trying to anticipate and solve certain social problems, they created a lot of others.