[Senko]

I'm curious if anyone knows how they decided if a species would be non-human? Some like dragons are obvious but why for example are sasquatches a non-human species that was in hiding while Cyclopses and Oni are sub types of metahuman variants?

[Mirikon]

It is all taxonomy, I believe. The metatypes and metavariants are all part of Homo sapiens. An elf is Homo sapiens nobilis, IIRC. Sasquatches are not part of Homo sapiens.

[Kiirnodel]

That doesn't really answer the question asked, though, Mirikon.

The question was "why is an elf, oni, or cyclops classified as a homo sapien, but a sasquatch isn't?"

To truly answer that question, we would have to talk to the minds behind some of the original creature/racial rules for Shadowrun and the get the reasoning behind them. But if I had to take a guess, I would say it is based on the source material, mythology.

Sasquatches, or Bigfoot as they are often called in American folklore supposedly pop up from time to time even recently. They aren't magical creatures of a distant past. So, the concept that they exist separately from humanity made sense. Same thing goes for Pixies, which is another example of a metasapient in the Shadowrun lore that sort of just appeared out of the woods one day. All the other (playable race) metasapients are basically just awakened animals. Centaurs are more closely related to horses than people, and the same goes for Naga. And of course Shifters are animals first, that can shift into humans.

Another possibility is based on how closely some of those species resemble or relate to animals instead of humans. Oni, Cyclopses, Satyrs, dwarfs, etc all resemble humans in many depictions. In modern fantasy games, a lot of them are considered "playable races" placing them on-par with humans. The only SR playable metasapient that even closely resembles humans is the Sasquatch, which we already covered as having a good excuse for being kept separate from humanity as a classification.

[Novocrane]

I'd guess at a decision making process even more mundane. Metavariants were created with the express purpose of being human variants, while metasapients originated in whatever critter section of whichever edition they first appeared in.

[DragginSPADE]

Sasquatches date back to the Shadowrun 1st edition core rulebook, where they were listed as an awakened creature that had been recognized as sentient by most nations.  They had a few other early appearances in various bits of shadowrun lore. 

Metavarients didn't appear until the 2nd edition Shadowrun Companion.  My guess is that the developers just decided to leave the sasquatches as is rather than retcon them  when metavarients were introduced to the game.

[Quatar]

All the metahuman types can interbreed. An Elf can have kids with a dwarf or a Cyclops, and the child is again a metahuman (usually determinded by the parents type)

An elf (or any metahuman for that matter) cannot have children with a Sasquatch or a Centaur.

[Glyph]

I think it was an organic design process that built on the initial premises, but that probably seems a bit arbitrary in hindsight.  They started out with the core metatypes, along with the notion that these were essentially versions of Homo Sapiens, and had additional sapients that could basically fall under critters, infected (undead), or spirits.  So new races or creatures would basically fall into one of those four categories, depending on which seemed to be the best fit.

There was some slight ret-conning (ghouls were originally a metatype rather than infected), and there are some some things that might have fit into another category (wendigos, with their original fluff about cannibal cults, would have been better as malign spirits rather than infected), but overall it is mostly coherent.

One thing that always amuses me is how the metahumans that have been playable for a while are considered "normal", but the newer character options are considered "special snowflakes".  I do get that the newer types often stand out because they are comparatively rarer, but it is still funny seeing someone playing a hulking troll complaining about someone else playing an oni.

[Sengir]

That doesn't really answer the question asked, though, Mirikon.

The question was "why is an elf, oni, or cyclops classified as a homo sapien, but a sasquatch isn't?"

Taxinomy is based on genetic analysis, and genetically a cyclops is a homo sapiens few extra gene expressions (as evidenced by their ability to have fully fertile offspring). On the other hand pesvastus pilosis (aka. a sasquatch) is seemingly removed far enough to not even quailify for the genus homo.

[Kiirnodel]

That doesn't really answer the question asked, though, Mirikon.

The question was "why is an elf, oni, or cyclops classified as a homo sapien, but a sasquatch isn't?"

Taxinomy is based on genetic analysis, and genetically a cyclops is a homo sapiens few extra gene expressions (as evidenced by their ability to have fully fertile offspring). On the other hand pesvastus pilosis (aka. a sasquatch) is seemingly removed far enough to not even quailify for the genus homo.

Yes, I know what Taxonomy is. The point I was trying to make was that since pesvastus pilosis (aka sasquatch) is a fictional species, the way it was classified genetically was a choice made by a person, not by nature. The OP's question wasn't likely asking about the genetics or taxonomy of the various metasapients vs metavariants (etc), but was asking why they decided to classify them that way. So yes, sasquatch are "removed far enough to not even qualify for the genus homo," but why did they decide to classify them that way?

The answer is, quite simply, that's what the developers decided to do. The original decision is far enough back that we aren't likely to get an answer from someone who actually was a part of that decision process. Setting-wise, it gives an interesting set-up to the concept of Meta-sapient rights (the argument over whether creatures like Sasquatch, Centaurs, Pixies, etc. should have the same rights as the rest of metahumanity. And personally, I like the idea of having that distinct difference between creatures that are "human" at a fundamental level, while some creatures simply aren't. Shifters are my favorite because of that fundamental stage where they grow up as an animal and then gain the ability to appear "human" which gives them a vastly different societal viewpoint than other species.

[Crimsondude]

I'd guess at a decision making process even more mundane. Metavariants were created with the express purpose of being human variants, while metasapients originated in whatever critter section of whichever edition they first appeared in.

Minotaurs and Cyclopses were introduced in Paranormal Animals of Europe as European variants of trolls but lacking in any mechanical effects. The Shadowrun Companion included them as expanded character concepts, but also featured mechanical differences for choosing them. Since there were already a couple for trolls, FASA made a couple of metavariants for orks, elves, and dwarves. Given the need to have discrete offshoots of those specific metatypes, they picked character types similar to how minotaurs and cyclopses would be related to trolls. 

[Senko]

Interesting thanks for the info. Yes I was asking why the person decided on classifying some things as metahumans and some as non-humans rather than the mechanics of that decisison.

[cold iron]

Its most likely has to do with all the different questions that shadowrun like to ask. What happens when some people can use magic, what happens when you start being more machine then person. So without adding aliens to the cyberpunk/fantasy mix having a sentient being that is not human had to be on the list. Dragons and spirits sort of fill this roll but they are too powerful to really fit the roll. If nothing else I feel it could just fall back on the number one deciding factor of all things in early shadowrun. The rule of cool. So it comes down to wouldn't it be cool if the human like mythical creatures were real but not human. Same as why shifters are animal that become human not the other way around. It introduces a way to throw off human logic while still appearing human like.

As for the how It would simply fall into the question of it being a human affected by UGE or a human like being that they wanted to be separate. Sort of like how they made spirits are not the same thing as ghosts.

[Crimsondude]

What amazes me is how humans haven't killed every other sapient species (yet) like we did with the last sapient non-homo sapiens.

[Senko]

The last sapient non-human?

[RowanTheFox]

The last sapient non-human?

Neanderthals. We murdered the drek out of them.