Abilities or Traits that "define" races in Fantasy Wargaming?

[robh]

Not proscribed by army lists from existing rulesets but in general terms:  What defines an "XXXXX" army for you?

Where XXXXX is Dwarf, Elf, Ratman, Human, Undead etc be they Lawful, Neutral or Chaotic versions of each (using D&D alignments for familiarity in discussion only)

For example: Are Dwarves always Tough and Slow. Should they display an inability to use magic and are they always Technologically more advanced than other races? Should they be all Infantry or include Cavalry, if so what would they ride? Would a "Lawful/Good" Dwarf be any different than a "Chaotic/Evi"l one in anything other than moral outlook?

I am trying to identify wargame concepts that make a "Dwarf" a "Dwarf" or an "Elf" an "Elf" etc and in such makes him different than a Human. I know it is a bit of an amorphous subject and for each author or game system that says one thing there will be others that say the direct opposite, but if you were to sum up a given racial army type in a sentence or two what would you say?

[Cubs]

Orcs/Goblins need to have a range of troops from big and tough orc/troll types, through to weak and pathetic gobbos. In general I think they should always have lowish morale and be likely to flee once the influence of their leader is gone from them. The bulk of their forces should also be undisciplined unarmoured or lightly armoured grunts too.

In general I think it should be army that appeals to chancers and those who are happy to win or lose big, depending on the vaguaries of the dice.

[robh]

OK, that is the sort of thought I am looking for. I have never run Orcs so have no idea on the ethos of the forces.
For a historical archetype Ancient Britons/Gauls/Vandals?  Warband rank & file with nobles/elites, mixed Inf, Cav and Chariots.  Pure Tribal, Professional core with mass Levy or all practiced Warriors?

What about stuff like animosity and infighting, important or not?

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

ORCS: I think the old quote " More than a man at the start of a battle, less than a woman at the end" (or something similar) decribes the orcs.  Tough, scrappy, happy to charge in wildly, then melt away.  Have some staying power but are prone to being demoralised/panicking when their overlords fail (get killed, don't keep the battlefield under a dark cloud etc).  Non Tolkien orcs have all sorts of sizes and can be hulking.  Tolkien orcs rely on some big friends - trolls, wargs etc.

ELVES: Kick arse!  The uber soldiers.  Tall, strong, fast, deadly. But they can be overly rash and emotional.  Spontaneous charges, wild pursuits etc can be their undoing.  Suffer from a command that is not unified and riven by jealousies.  Wood elves are more flighty, lighter armour.  Rely on speed, terrain and arrows.  Non Tolkien elves have lots of spells. 

DWARVES:  Immovable rocks.  Slow but once they are defending a position are hard to move.  Are capable of short devastating charges.  Few missiles.  GW type dwaves will have technology on their side and weird contraptions.

MEN: These get the worst of all fantasy races.  No real special abilities  .  Fantasy writers are racist towards humans!  As there are many human cultures it is hard to make any real comments here.  In general they have numbers on their side (although not as many as the orcs).  Capable of charges and stout defence (possibly not as good as the elves and dwarves respectively, but in the middle ground between the two).  Better with command structures, organisation and integrated forces.

[robh]

ELVES: .........Suffer from a command that is not unified and riven by jealousies.......

Now, that is an interesting idea, I had not considered traits as a command aspect.

For humans do you think Armies should be defined, as Warhammer did with discrete Imperial, Bretonnian and Kislev forces or should that be down to player choice? There are thousands of historic human armies to choose from as your basis.

I suppose a related aspect to this is whether fantasy players want to sit and develop armies that are unique to them or just pick units from an XYZ Army list to an agreed points value?

[Cubs]

OK, that is the sort of thought I am looking for. I have never run Orcs so have no idea on the ethos of the forces.
For a historical archetype Ancient Britons/Gauls/Vandals?  Warband rank & file with nobles/elites, mixed Inf, Cav and Chariots.  Pure Tribal, Professional core with mass Levy or all practiced Warriors?

What about stuff like animosity and infighting, important or not?

I've always seen Orcs/Goblins as like Ancient Britons in a lot of ways - mostly good going forward but prone to breaking and fleeing, with of course that mix of troop types you list. The animosity and infighting is a good touch, but can get out of hand and ruin a game with a couple of bad rolls! Gotta give them a chance to be bullied into line.

I know there's also different ways of looking at them. I've never liked the GW Goblins and preferred to have an all-Orc force if possible. But I can also see where some would say that goes against the grain and is cheating, and that the Orcs are just the heavy infantry of the Orcs/Goblins force (obviously Tolkein didn't use the two 'races' as separate, it's only in gaming that this split between them has occurred) and that the hordes should be made up of weak Goblins.

I've also always leaned towards the idea that the supreme leader needs to be a non-Orc/Goblin personality, to reflect the fact that they are essentially followers, not leaders. I don't see them as inherently 'evil' in the same way as Undead or Demons, they're just weak-willed, amoral base creatures who are naturally prone to violence, easily led and don't worry overmuch about their master's intentions or endgame. This makes it all the more devastating for them when their general's influence is gone and they are leaderless because they become confused and will just leg it into the hills. I see Orcs/Goblins without a strong willed master as essentially disorganised bandit gangs who might haunt the wilderness until hunted down by the forces of law and order.

[Psychopomp]

To define human armies, I'd say they often show the most internal variation across cultures, but their important traits that they are the baseline for physical and magical ability - the other races are defined by how they differ from humans (as that is the standard that the players know best, after all.)  But, across all fiction, humans tend to be the ones that when cornered, stand their ground, bring other races together, and hold fast to save the world.  Unless they're the weak-willed traitors who side with the force of darkness, of course.

So...I'd say humans are defined as average in everything except their capacity for heroism or villainy - the great ones burn brighter (or exude darker) than other races, but burn out their mortal span quicker.  Situational morale: high morale when standing for good/justice/what's right/the survival of our people, but low morale when siding with evil/injustice/corruption/the forces of darkness.  Also, humans tend to be the unifiers, for good or evil.  A human hero will bring together the elves and dwarfs to stand with the nations of men to hold off the darkness, while a human villain will forge orcs, goblins, trolls, demons, and evil men into the wave of darkness that must be held off.

[Hobgoblin]

Great idea for a thread!

MEN: These get the worst of all fantasy races.  No real special abilities  .  Fantasy writers are racist towards humans!  As there are many human cultures it is hard to make any real comments here.  In general they have numbers on their side (although not as many as the orcs).  Capable of charges and stout defence (possibly not as good as the elves and dwarves respectively, but in the middle ground between the two).  Better with command structures, organisation and integrated forces.

Now, I'd say that in most pre-Tolkien fantasy and myth, and even in Tolkien at some points, there's a notion that Men are the best of all species: larger and more vigorous than the older races, and more numerous too. So, Men in folk tales are generally much mightier than dwarfs - which makes sense, when you think about it. But dwarfs are adept in the use of magic.

There's also a common concept that older, more magical races are on the wane - so their lives are more precious (also because they're long-lived or immortal if not slain). Moorcock is good on that in the Corum and Elric books. I think that's best reflected in games by limiting the numbers of elves and dwarfs, and having them highly reliant on magic and magical weapons. So they should be "eggshells armed with hammers": able to deal out lots of damage, but grievously depleted by any damage that comes their way.

Dwarfs are typically cowardly in folklore and myth. They seem to get bullied by human heroes like Sigurd, but they're treacherous and cunning. Some of them can shapeshift, including into dragon form; otters and fish are less militarily advantageous forms. I wonder if their morale might be affected by the success of their magic; there are various instances of dwarfs surrendering after losing their magic cloak/helmet/weapon in legend/myth/folklore.

Orcs/goblins are really just a Tolkien and post-Tolkien thing (you can go back to George MacDonald's goblins if you want, but they're largely the prototype for Tolkien's). In Tolkien, the big thing that comes through is that they're relatively ineffectual against shieldwalls because they're small. They're hardy and fast-moving (and all seem to be archers as well as close-combat troops), but they're simply not as big as Men. I think Cubs and Elthered have covered their morale very well: they run howling when their champions or non-Orcish leaders fall (as in Moria, when the huge chieftain is killed, or after the death of Bolg). Their main advantages are speed of movement (more a campaign/big-battle thing than for skirmishes, perhaps), archery and numbers. They're individually strong, but not big enough to bring that strength to bear in a massed battle. Obviously, the size observations evaporate in the post-Tolkien milieu.

I think Cubs' notion of non-Orcish leaders for Orcs (etc.) is extremely 'resonant'. There are so many examples: the balrog (maybe); Sauron; the ringwraiths (and presumably the Witch King when he was still mortal); the Mouth of Sauron; Saruman; David Bowie in Labyrinth (OK, so he's the goblin king, but he looks very different); Maleficent in Sleeping Beauty; even Jabba the Hutt and his Gamorrean guards.

For Chaos armies, Moorcock's really the motherlode. The most obvious aspect is that the bulk of the army is composed of beastmen. And these beastmen are wretched rather than powerful, GW-style, and there are loads of them. As with orcs, the leader is most likely to be very different: Prince Gaynor the Damned or whoever.

The game that does all this best, I think, is Hordes of the Things. It's explicitly designed to reflect literature and myth rather than other games, and its army lists are all the better for it. They all draw on the same 20 troop types, but the combinations are really interesting and give the armies very distinct characters.

[waitwhat]

I think by definition chaotic and human forces can take any form - even good guy malal chaos. So that makes racial archetypes the conversation. So just word associating it:

Dwarves - robust, hardy, gritty, intractable, stubborn, resilient, xenophobic,  materialistic, inflexible, ingenious, mechanical, structured, selfish

Elves - alien, ineffable, inscrutable, fast, flighty, elite, uncooperative, ethereal, ancient, unpredictable, disdainful, arrogant, ephemeral, factional, fragile

Greenskins - spontaneous, single-minded, unplanned, primal, violent, strong, tough, cunning (but not strategic), uncontrollable, uncoordinated, argumentative, horde

Undead - mindless, inexhaustible, inevitable, inexorable, relentless, silent, slow, flimsy, cold, dispassionate, unrelatable, ancient, external

[robh]

I like the idea of Orcs as bandits, a tribal or clan society without strategic aims but willing legions for a manipulative non orc leader. I follow the view of Goblins as being smaller/lesser orcs rather than a distinct development.
The core of the army being an evil Human (or Elf?) with a small unit of like minded trained elite evil warriors/knights and wizards while the bulk is tribal warbands of mixed size/ability Orcs with various weaponry (so no neatly organised bowmen, axemen and 2 sword units).  Degenerate human outcast units fighting as allies.

Dwarves as cowardly fighters but powerful users of magic breaks the common stereotypical image (where does the inability to use Magic actually come from?.........is that pure Warhammer?) and while it is certainly a viable idea it would probably be quite a hard sell as an army list......not to mention the dearth of suitable figures.
The vision as a not tall, technically proficient cross between a Viking and an Ozark Mountain Man seems too well established.

The defining traits of "Elf" seem fairly well established and the views expressed so far are broadly aligned. What are your thoughts on splitting "Good" elves between High and Wood as is commonly done post Tolkien (whose distinction was more racial than practical IMHO). Two linked aspects of the same thing rather than two distinct species/races?

Undead are an interesting one for me (When I used to play Warhammer it was always Vampire Counts). I am leaning towards undead warrior types not being inherently evil, taking them as mindless and devoid of will in the service of true evil leaders. I still like the original Warhammer idea that every undead unit has to have a commanding non-undead to keep it active.

[Barbarus]

Hi there


For my project "A Fantastic Saga" (see my signature) I had to ask myself these exact questions.

My thoughts were also influenced by Warhammer, because I wanted to make the factions in AFS so that they are "compatible" with Warhammer factions, but I mostly used what I thought of as typical archetypes in Fantasy as base for the factions....

I try to keep my answer short and just do a quick list with keywords...


Undead: relentless, inducing fear in the enemy/lowering the enemy's morale, can take a lot of damage, regenerate, slow

Dwarves: disciplined, can take a lot of damage, inflict a lot of damage in close combat, slow

Wild Tribes ("evil" Barbarians): lightly armoured, get into a "frenzy", then they inflict crazy amounts of damage

Elves: disciplined, fragile, fast, very precise in their movement and shooting

Nocturnelves (Dark Elves/Evil Elves): disciplined, fragile, fast, very precise in their movement and charges, use a lot of "tricks"

Orcs: I based them on Dacians, use a lot of heavy weapons (falx), are hard to manage/don't have the best discipline, are keen to fight, can get themselves into a frenzy

Kobaloi (Goblins): bad morale, rely on numbers and a lot of "trickery"

Satyroi (Beastmen): are chaotic in their abilities, damage-output can vary, as well as the damage they take, their equipment is very basic

Empire (typical human faction): rely heavily on synergies, they are allrounders with solid infantry and solid cavalry... no extreme strengths but also no extreme weaknesses

Troglodytes (nasty dungeon-crawlers/Skaven/Nightgoblins etc.): rely on numbers, very weak troops, rely on mechanisms that weaken the enemy greatly

[waitwhat]

The defining traits of "Elf" seem fairly well established and the views expressed so far are broadly aligned. What are your thoughts on splitting "Good" elves between High and Wood as is commonly done post Tolkien (whose distinction was more racial than practical IMHO).

Personally I like the approach taken in the latter stages of WFB and in Elder Scrolls (a fantastic alt world) where high/wood/dark elves are a spectrum (wood elves being neither good or evil, more other) and may have started as one race but have definitely diverged (perhaps as far as Falmer, Dwemer). Alien otherworldliness is the defining even trait for me, of any flavour.

[Ethelred the Almost Ready]

Hobgoblin, there are a few figures around for more of the traditional mythical dwarves.
http://www.mirliton.it/product_info.php?pName=dworgar-with-sword-and-shield&cName=fantasy-2528mm-dwarfs

I suppose Tolkien's petty dwarves were a nod to the more traditional dwarves of Norse myths.  I presume Mim the petty dwarf got his name from Mime in Wagner's Siegfried.

Some of the more human looking orcs might pass as dwarfs in this context.

[Duncan McDane]

Look at the real world. Each nation has a warfare style that represents it's character. Like I always do when planning an army list, look at the background, look at the available troops/weapons and the army/gang will write itself down, as will the tactics used best for it/them.

[robh]

For my project "A Fantastic Saga" (see my signature) I had to ask myself these exact questions.

Yes, it is a familiar journey for many of us.  My interest is in advancing the earlier fantasy expansion of Impetus now that the "official" version is pretty much abandoned.
Leaving the rules (which are a superb mass battle game) but adding in the required Fantasy elements (Magic and Creatures/Monsters mainly).

All good fun......