The Campaign Builder's Guild

I've never liked the fact that races come with ability negatives. I love the idea of a Dwarven Bard but, mechanically, that is a terrible idea due to the Dwarf's -2 Charisma.

I like the idea of only giving positives but that too can have issues. Look at 4E, every race comes with one or two ability bonuses and cool racial features. However, because the system is so heavily invested in making each class attack with a particular attribute, it forces the same kind of "path building" as 3.5. For example, I ant to be a Dwarven Bard but they don't get a bonus to Charisma, so it makes it far more difficult to be the best Bard you can be compared to a race who receives a bonus to Charisma.

This is why I have grown to like the idea of racial abilities being physiological or cultural in nature (i.e. Talking to Burrowing Animals, knowing how to use a particular weapon, being resistant to poison, etc.). I think this system de-emphasizes the meta-/power-gaming nature of a lot of players, which from my perspective is a good thing. I want players to pick the race that they think best fits the vision for their character, not the race who best fits the vision of their character and has good stat bonuses.

Having said that, I think some players might be turned off by that idea because physiological and cultural traits are not as omnipresent or continually useful as say +2 Strength. I think it is incumbent on the DM to make those cultural traits come up in game on a fairly regular basis. Meaning, if someone is playing a Gnome, then make sure to include burrowing animals for him to talk to.

Quote from: Elemental_Elf
Having said that, I think some players might be turned off by that idea because physiological and cultural traits are not as omnipresent or continually useful as say +2 Strength. I think it is incumbent on the DM to make those cultural traits come up in game on a fairly regular basis. Meaning, if someone is playing a Gnome, then make sure to include burrowing animals for him to talk to.

I totally agree with this, but to an extent, this goes without saying.  The reverse is just as true (though rarely an issue):  if a player makes a combat monster, it's up to the DM to toss some combat his way fairly regularly.

While I do think it is perfectly acceptable for a racial template to include physiological drawbacks (a dwarf can't help having stumpy legs that don't let him move quickly, just as elves can't help being fragile), I do want those drawbacks to make sense and a result of the species' physiology and not just "cuz all dwarves hate orcs!"  Even things like Stonecunning is cultural; a dwarf raised by humans in a human city should lack it.

An easy way to get around this in d20 is riffing on Iron Heroes chargen.  Treat everyone as "human" and give everyone an extra feat or two (DM choice) that can be drawn from any feat, or a special pool only available for this purpose.  The special pool of feats contains feat-power "racial" benefits like Stonecunning or Speak with Burrowing Animals.  If you take these, you're effectively transforming your PC into a dwarf or gnome, but you still place (or roll, if you're hardcore) your attributes and can make a strong dwarf, a sickly dwarf, a charismatic dwarf, etc.

The closest thing Asura has to different races for player characters is its set of Asura lineages. As many of you are probably aware, the Asura system is quite FATE-like, so one the main ways I use to distinguish them is their aspects.

I have written in the rules that at least one of an Asura's aspects should focus on his or her lineage, and possibly more, if the character is an extremely typical or atypical example of that lineage. I am not a big fan of all kinds of small (and somewhat stereotypical) racial bonuses and penalties. I prefer to outline the broad strokes of each Asura lineage in fluff, and then use the flexible nature of aspects to give it meaning in crunch.

The other thing I did was roughly similar to LC's approach with stunts. Asuras can use Prana Powers, which are sources of spiritual or magical power that flows through them; it is part of what makes them beyond human. Each Asura lineage has certain Prana Powers that are more suited to them, and helps to define what the lineage is and what its little "niche" in the world is. For example, Faeries have various powers of creation and wonderment, whereas Revenants are more related to death and nasty stuff. Because these are supernatural powers, though, I feel like it might at least somewhat escape the "not getting a bonus is the same as getting a penalty" problem-- any lineage can excel at the more mundane skills, and the powers are flexible enough that I could certainly see a Faerie con artist using Glamour while a Progenitor con artist uses Scientia, or whatever, as both can advance the cause of "fooling people into doing what I want," just in ways that match the flavor of each lineage.

Each Asura lineage also has its own source of sustenance: Demons feeding on suffering, Succubi on pleasure, and so on. Right now, I don't have any particular crunch to handle this. I could, though-- I'm just not sure as to whether "feeding" mechanics would even add something or just be something annoying that would get ignored in most games. Right now, it usually just connects to an aspect, and a certain need to feed makes a good compel. Maybe, in a FATE-like system, that's the best way to do it.

Quote from: sparkletwistEach Asura lineage also has its own source of sustenance: Demons feeding on suffering, Succubi on pleasure, and so on. Right now, I don't have any particular crunch to handle this. I could, though-- I'm just not sure as to whether "feeding" mechanics would even add something or just be something annoying that would get ignored in most games. Right now, it usually just connects to an aspect, and a certain need to feed makes a good compel. Maybe, in a FATE-like system, that's the best way to do it.

Quite likely. "You need this now" is pretty well-handled by aspect compels in FATE. (In fact, that's exactly how Dresden Files handles the hungers of its various categories of vampires, which seems fairly analogous.)

Another possible option would be to take another page from White Wolf, in terms of merging the game mechanic concept of a currency of points used to fuel your powers with the in-fiction concept of a resource/requirement/craving that characters are aware of and must take care to acquire and manage. I'm not sure what your mechanics look like nowadays or whether there is any sort of "mana pool" associated with Prana Powers, but if so, it might serve as powerful thematic reinforcement to have each lineage use a different method for topping off the tank.

Okay so here's a question about the Race Builder for Pathfinder. I overall like it. However there was one thing that was bugging me.

Let's say I want to make a race that's not humanoid. Let's say in theory I wanted a race of sentient cat-like creatures with innate psionic abilities. Not catfolk, actual four legged cats that can pick things up with their brains and shoot lasers out of their eyes. Their every bit as intelligent as humans, and they have an organized society. So their not animals, and magical beast isn't even considered on the Race Builder.

The root problem I have with the Race Builder is that it presumes you only want to play as something with hands. Even the Quadruped option gives you four legs and two arms and hands. What then am I supposed to do when I want a race of talking platypus that can conduct electricity from there bills and fry all unsuspecting fools that dare to follow them into his natural habitat? Not magical beasts mind you. There not animals, they are talking sentient creatures who just happen to be either magical platypuses, or closely related to platypuses. They have a ridged society, and a deeply rooted culture in the worship of the great proto-mammal, who laid the great eggs of creation, and while two of it's hatchlings stuck to the true ways of egg laying, the rest of the warm blooded children went to the dark paths of wombs, or the unholy paths of pouch-raising.....

I'm sorry what was I talking about?

Could some quick house-ruling solve it pretty easily?  Pretty much the only reason Pathfinder assumes the humanoid template is because of magic item slots.  The addition of some alternate magic item slots and/or house-rules for wearing rings, gauntlets, necklaces etc on fingerless/wristless/neckless creatures could work...

Fantasy games in general seem a bit anthropocentric, with a lot of humanoid races and few really odd ones.  I think crunch often reflects this bias.

You should probably just make something up and go with it. Obviously, if you just make something up you won't have a "Racial Point" cost associated with it, but what the Race Builder spits out isn't really anything resembling balanced anyway, so that doesn't really matter. (I know it is designed for GMs, not players, so all the ways to min-max it are a little pointless, but what I'm trying to say is that you don't have to worry about the point costs working out because they don't make any sense anyway)

Quote from: Luminous Crayon
So we've been having a bit of fun in the Tavern, picking apart the post of some poor blogger on the subject of races. I have my own issues with the particulars of that post, but I think the general idea-- that race stats as done in D&D are pretty unsatisfying for a variety of reasons.

If you use a world/system with different playable races or race-analogues (species, cultures, whatever you want to call them-- I think the word "race" is problematic as well and would like to get away from it, which is tough considering how entrenched it is in the gaming lexicon), do you differentiate them mechanically, and if so, how?

You can check my current work out in some detail here: http://www.therpgsite.com/showthread.php?t=26738 What I basically do is treat it similarly to a class. In this case, this means a free maxed out ability score, a bit of a skill list, and some fitting feats where necessary. One thing that might interest you is that I'm adding to the skill *list* rather than giving bonuses. This makes these cultural benefits more optional, and also sets the best dwarf craftsmen up as being equal with the best elf and human craftsmen (so if you want to make the best possible crafting character, you still have options).

Here's the root problem I'm having with my game specifically. My campaign setting is set primarily in America. Roaring twenties America to be exact. There are a ton of cultures and environments in this country. The northwest is completely different from the northeast, and the southwest is not the same as the southeast. Am I supposed to take into account every single culture on the planet and somehow put them into statistical measures, or should I take into account a creatures base physical features, and let the players and I fill in the rest of the space?

I would go with (non-human) physical features only.  Is this d20 or something else?  If d20, you could always go with Occupations as they did in d20 modern to help reflect different cultures...

Quote from: Steerpike
I would go with (non-human) physical features only.  Is this d20 or something else?  If d20, you could always go with Occupations as they did in d20 modern to help reflect different cultures...

Yes! Thank you, Steerpike! I'm going to go look into that again.

These are perfect!

Quote from: Newb Auld Lang Syne
Here's the root problem I'm having with my game specifically. My campaign setting is set primarily in America. Roaring twenties America to be exact. There are a ton of cultures and environments in this country. The northwest is completely different from the northeast, and the southwest is not the same as the southeast. Am I supposed to take into account every single culture on the planet and somehow put them into statistical measures, or should I take into account a creatures base physical features, and let the players and I fill in the rest of the space?

If you're describing player options as "creatures" at all, yes, purely physical differences along these lines are probably ideal. Unless I'm missing some context anyway. It might be nice to be able to choose localized backgrounds (with options keyed to this area) in addition to professions or classes if you have those. The question is pretty setting dependent though.

When we describe the species "baseline" as the human average we automatically prejudice our approach to the other species' attributes as deviations from that average.

My solution to this problem was to identify a few "core" human characteristics, which most species would consider novel, and to distribute the majority of humankind's attributes at varied distances from the mean without altering the real-world values that those attributes represent.

For example, here's part of my human writeup from a jury-rigged AW-hack adventure:

[ic=Humans]Humans are remarkably quick to form likeminded collectives and establish idiosyncratic norms of behaviour. Their behaviour is not more variable in practical terms, but they are given to exotic and impractical embellishments. They are exceptionally promiscuous and subject to vicissitudes of temper.

Human intellectual development is swift and evinces exceptional spatial and logical competency, with truly remarkable outliers. Their potential is predominantly front-loaded: a human being in its early adulthood already manifests the bulk of its talents and will not evince significant new capacities in later life.

Humans are intensely social and engage in verbal communication almost reflexively, even when they have little content to share. In fact, it is not uncommon for humans experiencing prolonged isolation to converse with themselves. Most species find human verbosity off-putting. Uniquely, most adult humans cannot differentiate the higher frequencies used by spectral races.

Because facial expressions are a vital component of human communication, humans have difficulty empathising with entities who lack humanoid faces. This is exacerbated with species such as seelie and undines, whose faces are humanoid but do not emote in a typically mammalian fashion: such creatures cause confusion or even distress in human beings.

Humans are uncommonly swift on the ground, and with little practice can be as dextrous climbers as any anthroid.[/ic]

This description contains numerous exceptions which prove some general cross-species rules.

Most species speak less than humans, yet are intuitively better at recognising the personhood of other species. They reproduce slower than we do, are more emotionally stable, and continue to "mature" long after a human personality would be fully expressed.

[ooc=In Perspective]Here's a slice of the human stat block:

+1 reason
-1 scent
-1 empathy (inhuman expression) stacks with the typical penalty for interspecies empathy
+1 speech
+1 move
+1 climb
-1 focus
-1 will
spectral deafness (unless a child, or otherwise specified)

A slice of the seelie stat block, by comparison:

zero empathy (seelie cannot discern or comprehend emotion)
+1 grace
+1 listen
+1 focus
-1 will[/ooc]

I have long been a fan of not making humans the "base" species but instead making them (us?) stand out in some way, just like every other species in the setting. It's something that's a little hard to do, because of our own inherent biases-- but I generally like what people come up with. It's also sort of interesting what different people come up with as the different strengths and weaknesses of the human race relative to the other races. Of course, it is all relative, so there's no "right answer."

On the race/culture divide, this only matters if the race is vast, such that more than one culture exists. If you look at races in mythology, class fantasy, and sometimes D&D, sometimes they only live in a single community.