I'm using the term "species" because I never liked "race".  Just so you know going forward.

For a brief catch-up, many of you probably know I've had a few rpg projects in the works now, and a while ago I decided the best approach to this was to use a single system for all of them, and to make that system open source.  The projects (Sentient Steel, Rise of Arthur, Bleeding Sky, etc) would be more of expansions or campaign settings rather than separate rpgs.

That of course means a rewrite of all current rules.  I'm shooting for a universal mechanic for all task resolution using the % dice.

But that doesn't address what I'm asking here.  Since it's going to be open source, players will need to be able to recreate their own genre using the templates in the game.  One of those templates are species.  If someone wants to use the system to play a traditional fantasy game, how do they create elves, dwarves, etc.  My goal is to keep it simple, yet ensure that not every elf is just like the other.  My initial idea is such:

Ability Trees.  Each species will have three branches to their three, and each branch will have four abilities.  At every odd level (including 1st), you would choose one of the abilities from the branches as long as you already have the one directly above it; no skipping to the bottom ability.

Included in the core system would be a list of dozens of different branches, and when you create your species, you choose three that you'll use.

For example, I want to create a dwarf species.  The three branches I use are vision, hardiness, and toughness.  The branches have the following abilities, in order:
Vision
low light vision, night vision, infravision, see invisible

Hardiness
Hardiness (+5% to any endurance related check or skill), iron stomach (eat any type of food, including spoiled), disease immunity, poison immunity

Toughness
toughness (+1 hp per level), meat shield (reroll all 1s and 2s for hp), stoneskin (reduce all physical damage by 1 point), ironskin (reduce all physical damage by an additional 2 points).

As a player, at first level I choose one ability from one branch, let's say toughness.  At 3rd level, I can either choose low light vision, hardiness, or meat shield.  At 5th level, I chose another, and so on.


Ideas?  Thoughts?  Would you prefer a redefined list of species abilities, or do you prefer one where you choose?

Remember, these are species abilities, and are completely separate from class abilities.

A few thoughts. All of these are sort of independent things so sorry if this is a bit incoherent even by my standards.

*The odd thing about the tree approach here is that a character doesn't get all their racial abilities as a starting character. A sort of race as class. Wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me though.

*Usually with systems allowing racial customization, I like the idea that different ability selections mean different subraces of the species (compare Tallfellows and Stouts for your traditional halfling).

*you could also have a generic powers system, a la HERO or GURPS or Savage Worlds, where races are built using a single power framework system. That probably opens up a wider range of possible races - instead of having the Elf Tree or the Dwarf Tree predesigned, the player could select Extended Lifespan, Low light vision, and Immunity (sleep effects) to build a basic elf, or Resistance (poison), Darkvision, and Weapon Proficiency (axe) to get a basic dwarf, all from a single powers list.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;605101A few thoughts. All of these are sort of independent things so sorry if this is a bit incoherent even by my standards.

*The odd thing about the tree approach here is that a character doesn't get all their racial abilities as a starting character. A sort of race as class. Wouldn't be a dealbreaker for me though.

*Usually with systems allowing racial customization, I like the idea that different ability selections mean different subraces of the species (compare Tallfellows and Stouts for your traditional halfling).

*you could also have a generic powers system, a la HERO or GURPS or Savage Worlds, where races are built using a single power framework system. That probably opens up a wider range of possible races - instead of having the Elf Tree or the Dwarf Tree predesigned, the player could select Extended Lifespan, Low light vision, and Immunity (sleep effects) to build a basic elf, or Resistance (poison), Darkvision, and Weapon Proficiency (axe) to get a basic dwarf, all from a single powers list.

I would concur, but I get the impression that that is what BSJ meant kind of the 3 dwarf traits were jsut 3 traits off his lists not specific dward ones.

A template model with say a dozen (or whatever) racial traits each one with a tree structure and you have x points to spend on the race (that seems to be 3) and you pick that many trees.

Now I wouldn's have racial skills increase with level. I would use the same model but give each race (including Humans) points to spend.
As an Amber Fan I would double the points for each step.

So Vision 1 (1 point) Low light ; Vision 2 (2 points) - Night Vision; Vision 3 (4 points) Infrasvision; Vision 4 (8 points) Ultravision ; Vision 5 (16 points) True Seeing /see invisioble etc

Then give each race X many points to spend

Humans would probably get benefits to how quickly they acquire skills and their ability to take skills from different areas (I have been thinking that multiclassing and similar suit Humans more than demi-humans when we consider the idea that humans are flexible.)

Whoops yes rereading I think Sancrosanct did mean his powers would already be a generic list. My bad.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;605124Whoops yes rereading I think Sancrosanct did mean his powers would already be a generic list. My bad.

Yes, there would be a list of a dozen or generic lists, and when you create your race for you game, you select three that belong to that race...er..species

I thought about the, "it's a species, you should just have X abilities of that species just be belonging, why increase with level?"

The answer to that is twofold.  

1. It helps ensure your character gets something at every level (sometimes 2 or 3) when you also factor in class.  The challenge is how to justify this from a flavor standpoint.  Which leads to...

2. Each race has the inherent abilities in the list, but as you gain in experience and ability, you gain the ability to unlock a more evolved version.  For example all dwarves have low light vision, but only those with experience and knowledge have learned to enhance that to night vision or to see invisible creatures.

Yep the challenge is the flavour.

If you can do it by building higher-level abilities that look like they would result from skills, that's good. Or if the low-level characters has abilities but with a percentage or functionality that limits their usefulness.

Having 4 arms and not the full experience to employ them yet, great. Killing 100 orcs and suddenly growing wings, not so much. At least not unless you're a demon larva becoming a vrock or something.

I like the idea of my character choosing to "level up" either his racial abilities or his class abilities.

Quote from: Bloody Stupid Johnson;605169Yep the challenge is the flavour.

If you can do it by building higher-level abilities that look like they would result from skills, that's good. Or if the low-level characters has abilities but with a percentage or functionality that limits their usefulness.

Having 4 arms and not the full experience to employ them yet, great. Killing 100 orcs and suddenly growing wings, not so much. At least not unless you're a demon larva becoming a vrock or something.

I totally get what you're saying.  That's why I tried to have them the same basic ability, but gaining in potency as you level up.

Class design is very similar.  One of the goals is to make the rules as unifying as possible, so if I use the same mechanic for race/species abilities as class abilities, it's easier to use and you don't have to worry about a different mechanic.  For instance, you don't have to worry about a skill tree mechanic for classes, and a point buy for races/species.

Also, I used a dwarf as an example, but it's not fantasy themed.  The structure of the core rules will be for any genre.  So if you're using the templates for your own game world, there's nothing stopping you from using the three branches that you personally like best.  Maybe in your world, dwarves use the luck, learned, and adventurer branches instead.  Or if you're playing a game like Sentient Steel (where PCs are sentient machines), you have branches like hardened alloy, learned, and stabber.  Or you create your own using the guidelines.

Class abilities are very similar except each of the three branches has 6 abilities, and you choose one at every level.  But the tree structure is the same.

- Redundancy would be bad. Imagine that the "Underground Dweller" tree consists Low Light Vision, Dark Vision, Spelunker, Whatever, and the "Sharp Senses" tree has "Eagle Eye, Sensitive Hearing, Low Light Vision, Whatever". A race which has both trees is shortchanged, since one ability - Low Light Vision is featured twice on their list.

- Since redundancy is bad, each ability can only feature in one list. That, however, reduces the GM's ability to mix'n'match. Suppose I want one race to be and Underground Dweller and another one to have Sharp Senses. If there's no redundancy on the list, one of them is forced to go without Low Light Vision, even though it would make sense for both of them.

- So both redundancy and a lack of redundancy are bad, and there's no solution - with fixed lists. I'd strongly suggest you dump the fixed trees. Keep some as examples or to cover typical cases, and just add a single unified list of abilities, letting DM's pick whichever 4 they want for the tree they have in mind. Perhaps each ability could have a few suggested preceding and following abilities, similarly to WFRP's entry and exit lists for classes.

- On another note, all of your examples are strictly about pyhsical/bodily/biological attributes, and I find that a bit lacking. If I wanted to describe dwarves or elves with three short ability lists, you can bet "Miners" and "Treehuggers" would feature prominently. You should add culture-based trees.

- Having said all of the above, I am bothered by the notion that certain biological functions are subject to individual "evolution". With cultural abilities, sure. Master Miner isn't something that should benefit a young dwarf, it involves becoming experienced with things. But vision modes? You either have the organs or magical ability to see in complete dark or you don't. It's not something you should start without and then suddenly develop.

Redundancy is bad, and is something that is definitely at the top of the list of risks that need to be checked.

So far here are some examples of branches (rough draft only, please keep in mind)

•   Low light vision, night vision, infravision, detect invisibility

•   Luck (+1 CP), adventurer’s luck (reroll one die), leprechaun (+5% checks), hero’s luck (10% chance of not using up CP)

•   hardiness (+5% checks), iron stomach (eat rotten food), disease immunity, poison immunity

•   learned (+5% to all skills), scholar (+2 skill), degree (+5% to all skills), Sage (+2 skill)

•   toughness (+1 hp/level), meat shield (reroll all 1s/2s for hp), stoneskin (-1 DA), ironskin (-2 DA)

•   charismatic (+5% checks), smoothtalker (reroll check once), suave (+1 reaction table), manipulator (charm, DC = Int ability * 12)

•   Ability enhance I (+1 ability), AE II, AE III, AE IV

•   Adventurer (+5% XP), Veteran (+5% XP), Professional (+5% XP), Legend (+10% XP)

•   Stabber (+1 dmg), brawler (+1 dmg), gladiator (reroll all 1s for dmg), slayer (+1 CD)

•   Medic (+1 hp healed), nurse (reroll all 1s to heal), doctor (add +1 CD), surgeon (add 2 CD)

•   Stealthy (+5% checks), out of sight (+5% checks), meld (reroll check), invisibility

There would obviously be more, and ironed out for any balance or redundancy issues.

I think I'm actually OK with unlocking more advanced versions as a race/species ability as an option.  Unless you're modeling your game world in realism, I think that it's a neat option that doesn't break realism too much since high level characters often do or have superhuman traits already by that point.


*Note:  the "+5% checks" isn't universal, just my own personal notes.  For example, a +5% checks for stealthy only applies to stealth like checks, and +5% checks to hardiness are more like bonuses to fortitude checks and such.

It seems that maybe folks prefer a point buy system instead?  Something like each race/species as certain natural traits common to everyone, but you can spend points to enhance some of them.

For example, all elves have:
* low light vision
* enhanced hearing
* natural agility (+5% to skill checks based on agility)
* language (speak an extra language)

But you can choose to spend points to choose one or two of the following:
* night vision or infravision
* sonar
* +10% to +15% to agility checks
* have a chance to read or speak any language with a skill roll


Does that sound more appealing than a tree?

OK, I'm not too keen on a point buy, and would prefer something simple that gives a template on how to create your own species, including those more animal than humanoid.  So here's what I have, which is an improvement over what I've previously posted.

When creating a species, you choose two minor and one major racial trait.  So wood elves might have survival, night vision, and a minor innate magical ability.  A mountain dwarf might have detection, strong, and poison immunity.

Racial Minor
night vision
agile (+5% checks)
lucky (+5% checks)
strong (+5%)
smart (+5%)
linguist (extra languages)
skilled (+1 skill)
infravision
detection (+25% slopes, secred doors, traps)
survival (+25%)

Racial Major
adventurer (+10% exp)
skilled (+2 skills)
iron skin (+1 DA)
natural weapons (+2 dmg)
natural attribute (wings, gills, etc)
poison immunity
disease immunity
innate minor magical ability
heirloom