Quote from: jhkim on May 27, 2021, 01:36:20 PM

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 27, 2021, 11:07:10 AM
I like the idea of non-attribute buffs -- again, it's harsh enough that half-orcs effectively lose two attribute points from character creation, but they get practically nothing in terms of such abilities. I play in a lot of games where point buy is a thing, and as a result attribute points are fairly fungible -- so half-orcs lose out, bigly.

I agree. This is exactly why Savage Worlds abandoned attribute modifiers, and why they are largely meaningless now in later GURPS and Hero editions. Because if attributes are fungible anyway, then the only thing the mods do is introduce min/max possibilities.

Unpacking that a little more...

I think in D&D-like games, attribute mods only work as intended if one is using roll-in-order. If you choose race and then do roll-in-order of attributes, then a +2 Dexterity and -2 Wisdom means that player characters of that race will have on average Dexterity 2 higher than normal, and Wisdom 2 lower than normal. But even so, there will be 20% of characters with higher Wisdom than Dexterity, in reverse of the average.

However, if you use roll-six-times-and-arrange, then the problem is that +2 in your high prime attribute is worth a lot more than -2 in your dump stat. So any player who takes this race will be more effective if they choose a Dex-favoring class, put a high number into Dex and a low number into Wisdom. So the only way they will do otherwise isn't random - it's because the player deliberately takes a less effective character to play against type.

Personally, I dislike introducing this sort of deliberate min-maxing within character creation. Some people see it as a feature that some PCs are more powerful than others, to encourage system mastery. But I think character creation is the wrong time for it. Player characters should start on an equal footing, and tactical decision making should be important during play, not before.

This is why DCC is my preferred system.

Quote from: sureshot on May 27, 2021, 10:25:10 PM
Most games were " humanocentric" because of levels limits. It was either taking vanilla, boring,  bland as fuck human.

Nearly all the most interesting characters in fantasy are human (or at least look human), so no idea why you consider them "bland". Also, are you human yourself?

Quote from: Brad on May 27, 2021, 09:34:09 PM
If you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

I agree with this, but I don't feel that stat mods help. If the only difference is stats, then an orc is just a really strong human, a dwarf is just a really tough human, etc.

Qualitative differences are what make racial choices interesting for me: stuff like infravision, the ability to smell gold, etc. Merely changing amplitude of a very human trait doesn't create a unique archetype, it's the same archetypal vector represented by ability scores.

A middle ground here is changing the amplitude of qualities that are other than those represented by attributes. For example, making a race faster, heavier, immune to paralysis, etc.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2021, 10:17:08 AM

Quote from: sureshot on May 27, 2021, 10:25:10 PM
Most games were " humanocentric" because of levels limits. It was either taking vanilla, boring,  bland as fuck human.

Nearly all the most interesting characters in fantasy are human (or at least look human), so no idea why you consider them "bland". Also, are you human yourself?

So because fantasy novels etc have humans as characters we as players have to limit ourselves to being human. If you have no imagination and want to only play human  characters that is on you. Not all of us feel that way. Some people prefer human and some do not not as a race in fantasy RPGs. Nothing is wrong with either position. Not to mention I live as a human being day in and out. I don't always want to play one in an RPGs

And no I'm not a human I'm an AI posing as a human you fucking donut. Seriously dude get off the drugs, get help. Why would you even ask that. I don't ask the guy taking out my garbage if he really is the garbage guy.

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 12:09:17 PMAnd no I'm not a human I'm an AI posing as a human you fucking donut. Seriously dude get off the drugs, get help. Why would you even ask that. I don't ask the guy taking out my garbage if he really is the garbage guy.

Try to make a joke and this is what happens...

Quote from: sureshot on May 28, 2021, 12:09:17 PM

And no I'm not a human I'm an AI posing as a human you fucking donut.

  I thought you were an Autobot Targetmaster. 

Quote from: Wrath of God on May 28, 2021, 05:42:00 AM

QuoteYeah, lots of things. How individual NPC's might view the world and experience the world in significantly different ways, all ultimately derived and inspired from a fixed racial stat framework.

I really doubt it at least among standard +2/-2 races with randomized rolls - which is like standard for non-human.
This is not nearly enough to say NPCs will view world in significantly different ways. In fact at all.
You're race having +2/-2 to Int means one will have more top-notch wizards, but it won't take wizards from later.

So it's basically useless in this distinction unless you follow kinda fake stereotypisation based on just +2 / -2 to some attribute.

You need more, like strong enforced psychology traits, weird physiologies, or just treating the same attributes at members of different races differently like Chris suggested.
I seem to remember game when everything from giant to halfling used the same attributes but very different tables for Skill Challenge Levels.

QuoteYES, they are absolutely boring and terrible design choices. The idea that Halflings can be just as strong as humans or whatever is fucking retarded.

The same stat as I noted may mean something very different for halfling and human.

QuoteIt reminds me of my biggest issue with gender based modifiers. Not that they are necessarily unrealistic, but if men get +2 Strength and women get +2 Charisma, then all of the PC fighters will be men and all of the sorcerers (or sorceresses I should say) will be women.

Well only if you allow re-distribution tbh.

QuoteIf you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

That can be enforced in different way than stats.
Just like paladin class was more than it's class abilities.

QuoteAttribute stat profiles may be "minor" to Jhkim, but they are very significant and meaningful to other people.

You mean people not schooled in statistics, huh?

Quotebut at least to myself, and likely many others, such attributes are not merely mechanical, but feed into how an entire society in the aggregate may behave, operate, and value, as well as for individual player characters and NPC's alike.

Which is considering overall power of +2/-2 bonus (which is let us remind generally +1/-1 to roll on freaking swingy d20) ridiculous notion and just bad worldbuilding in terms of sociology

Greetings!

Well, I think that a race that has a +2 Racial Intelligence modifier can represent a number of things, for the individual, or the society.

WTF does statistics or knowledge of statistics have anything to do with WTF I said? I'm mostly talking about style, impessions, inspirations that come from having a racial attribute profile, as opposed to having all races have ZERO or all the same.

That doesn't have anything to do with *statistics*.

You obviously think it's ridiculous, that a +2 bonus to a stat might suggest anything sociologically? Great. I think that not seeing such a sociological aspect isn't good worldbuilding, but actually kind of dull and unimaginative. Definitely not my preference.

If you are happy with races having no racial attribute profile, or all races being the same, well, *shrug* Good for you. I think it is a terrible idea though.

Semper Fidelis,

SHARK

Removing Racial Stat Modifiers from the game altogether is better than allowing Racial Stat Modifiers to be fluid, and left up to the whim of each individual player; because this is the heydey of the Special Snowflake Character.

"WTF does statistics or knowledge of statistics have anything to do with WTF I said? I'm mostly talking about style, impessions, inspirations that come from having a racial attribute profile, as opposed to having all races have ZERO or all the same.

That doesn't have anything to do with *statistics*."

Which can be easily done without racial modifiers. And even better by simply crafting cultures and mentalities of various species rather than - we throw +2 on Wis, so GM's will be inspired to MAKE THEM SPIRITUAL PEOPLE. So freaking inspired!

QuoteYou obviously think it's ridiculous, that a +2 bonus to a stat might suggest anything sociologically? Great. I think that not seeing such a sociological aspect isn't good worldbuilding, but actually kind of dull and unimaginative. Definitely not my preference.

Yup. I think +2/-2 in terms of value of stat in D&D means nothing and is like irrelevant when crafting fictional species sociology, and irrelevant in terms of worldbuilding.
I mean if one species have Int only between 6 and 10 and another only between 16 and 20... then yes that's kinda relevant, but +2... don't be silly.
Elves not being able to sleep is 1000 much more inspiring in terms of fictional sociology than +2/-2... which in 99% ends up with making stereotypical races where everyone is like +8/-8 more than +2/-2... that's mostly dull and unimaginative.

(And don't get me wrong - I like racial modifiers but that's because I'm kinda like - fate and chance in character crafting guy, so it's add certain variety - but only with rolling in order , but I find it generally useless from worldbuilding perspective.)

QuoteNearly all the most interesting characters in fantasy are human (or at least look human), so no idea why you consider them "bland". Also, are you human yourself?

I mean if we talk about look human then like most of fantasy fictional species is human with some extra changes. Small curly headed humans, immortal pointy-eared humans, bearded stocky humans, green shroom humans, cat-humans, horse-humans, and so on.

QuoteIf you make race have no mechanical difference, then it's just "humans in funny suits" which undermines he whole point of role playing a different race in the first place.

Well... yes. But it does not mean it has to be ingrained specifically in attributes.

QuoteRemoving Racial Stat Modifiers from the game altogether is better than allowing Racial Stat Modifiers to be fluid, and left up to the whim of each individual player; because this is the heydey of the Special Snowflake Character.

Yup.

Quote from: Brad on May 28, 2021, 12:17:26 PM
Try to make a joke and this is what happens...

With all due respect your shtick is trying to push people buttons to get a reaction. Claiming it was a "joke" after it gets a negative response is BS imo. It's still a weird response to give as a rebuttal.

The worst thing about opening racial stat attributes is that it allows anyone to pretend to be a power gamer.

We see you.

We fucking see you.

Personally while I understand why many players want to play weird, non-human races, I generally prefer not to have non-humans in my games.

For example, one of my homebrew campaign settings has a wide range of human ethnicities, so if you want to play the typical heavy-drinking Scots stereotype you can play a character from X region, or if you want to play a pompous jerk who looks down on all the uncultured folk then you can play a character from Y region. I have a sense for what these different groups are like and I do have some rules for what characteristics typify each race. That being said, PCs are exceptional people. It doesn't bother me if someone wants to play against type, including not sharing mechanical characteristics common to a given ethne.

This setting also has non-humans, but I really prefer for these to be actually non-human in their motivations and thinking style. One race has some form of communal memory, another has a mindset which is effectively incapable of becoming bored. In a lot of cases the concerns and mentality of non-humanoid creatures puts them on the sidelines of adventures, because they just don't care if Baron Badguy is making a power play for the throne.

Quote from: Zelen on May 29, 2021, 12:18:55 AM
Personally while I understand why many players want to play weird, non-human races, I generally prefer not to have non-humans in my games.

For example, one of my homebrew campaign settings has a wide range of human ethnicities, so if you want to play the typical heavy-drinking Scots stereotype you can play a character from X region, or if you want to play a pompous jerk who looks down on all the uncultured folk then you can play a character from Y region. I have a sense for what these different groups are like and I do have some sense of what characteristics typify each race. That being said, PCs are exceptional people. It doesn't bother me if someone wants to play against type, including not sharing characteristics common to a given ethne.

This setting also has non-humans, but I really prefer for these to be actually non-human in their motivations and thinking style. One race has some form of communal memory, another has a mindset which is effectively incapable of becoming bored. In a lot of cases the concerns and mentality of non-humanoid creatures puts them on the sidelines of adventures, because they just don't care if Baron Badguy is making a power play for the throne.

Yeah, but that's something you address in Session Zero. Lay it out for the players and explain why.

I've had some fun with the oddball PC in my group (an aarakocra). On at least one occasion an NPC has tried to pluck feathers from her (because of an old wives' tale about feathers of the bird-people being a panacea against some misfortune).

Quote from: Ghostmaker on May 29, 2021, 12:30:53 AM
Yeah, but that's something you address in Session Zero. Lay it out for the players and explain why.

I've had some fun with the oddball PC in my group (an aarakocra). On at least one occasion an NPC has tried to pluck feathers from her (because of an old wives' tale about feathers of the bird-people being a panacea against some misfortune).

Yup. I understand the oddball races can be fun, and I'm perfectly okay with playing in games that are freakshows if that's set out as the premise. One campaign I remember fondly was a bunch of PCs that were literally monsters escaped from a zoo. Everyone played something crazy like a Minotaur, Sphinx, etc.

I'm currently playing a Leshy in PF2 campaign. Because it's Pathfinder, in which races are more like the Star Trek assumption of "Humans with forehead ridges" than actual alien mindsets, I'm not trying to play up the mentality differences. That being said, even just having a different physiology & diet creates some interesting nuances to roleplaying that is fun to explore.

Village Idiot: The Threadening. WW's next WODumb book coming soon. There will be only one race that is made up of stat mods because everything else is oh so bland and intollerable.