The Gaming Den

I'm not sure I need to clarify it.

If your schtick is hitting a guy with your sword, and you can't hit the other guy with your sword - because he's made pit traps with magic or is running away from you or you're at some other tactical negative where your sword is not accessible...

How many 'levels' will that negate you? Will merely being one level mean you can still take the guy?

It's kinda the Ewoks vs Stormtrooper question.

-Crissa

Elennsar wrote:And the problem is, if an elf with a bow is no more impressive than anyone else with a bow, there's nothing that will lead to that being awe-ful/fearful other than misconception.

Not true.

If (to pick an example) elves get racial longbow proficiency, that means that every single elf in the world is an archer. They are, literally, a race of archers. At low levels, that's useful. To NPCs, it's seriously impressive - Bob the Pig farmer uses a pitchfork, but Greenie the Elf Pig Farmer is a gorram archer. He uses those great, huge bows that Robin o' the Hat uses...that the Wandering Ranger-Dudes use. He must be awesome.

Perception is very powerful.

Nevertheless, I see your point...I'm just not sure it can be done well.

Even if that's only "the vast majority of elves do become excellent archers", there needs to be something that makes elf with a bow able to do well enough that not just anyone could copy it.

Maybe a dwarf who commited himself to mastering the bow as well as any elf could achieve that one day, but it would be accomplishing beyond the usual realm of nonelves...even extraordinary nonelves.

If I decide to play a dwarf ranger (or fighter, or w/e)...and I take all the archery feats and appropriate skills...and I spend my cash on a magic bow...and I stand in the back and kill monsters with arrows for 15 levels...I think it's fair to say that I have accomplished something "beyond the usual realm of nonelves...even extraordinary nonelves." My dwarf archer had better be damn impressive, and not have any elves I meet sniff at me and show me up without half trying.

Archtypes are cool, but they're also mutable (see: any nonstandard fantasy setting. Dark Sun is a good example). Many players enjoy playing the archtypes, but equally many enjoy defying the archtypes, simply because they are archtypes, and to try the odd duck, the rebel, the one-in-a-million.

Any RPG worth playing had better allow me to play a non-archtypal character and have it work. I'm all in favor of role-playing blowback from defying the norm - plot hooks and RP opportunities! - but my ability to kill monsters with pointy things should not suffer because my dwarf isn't an axeman, my elf isn't an archer, or my orc is a spellcaster.

Crissa wrote:I'm not sure I need to clarify it.

If your schtick is hitting a guy with your sword, and you can't hit the other guy with your sword - because he's made pit traps with magic or is running away from you or you're at some other tactical negative where your sword is not accessible...

How many 'levels' will that negate you? Will merely being one level mean you can still take the guy?

It's kinda the Ewoks vs Stormtrooper question.

-Crissa

You pull out your secondary tactic. It may or may not behave as if you were lower-leveled. If you've had one tactic negated, it actually shouldn't mean a lot IMO - you should be able to fight at full power in more than one way. I'm also going to assume you mean "merely being one level higher", in any case.

Nevertheless, I see your point...I'm just not sure it can be done well.

Neither am I. Saying "If proficient from another source, such as fighter levels, you gain +1 to hit." would cover it...but then see below. For common elves, it works well enough that they just get WP: Longbow because everyone else treats longbows as a bloody exotic weapon (Serious suggestion, though I'd tweak the stats to make it worth that before submiting it to the Den).

If I decide to play a dwarf ranger (or fighter, or w/e)...and I take all the archery feats and appropriate skills...and I spend my cash on a magic bow...and I stand in the back and kill monsters with arrows for 15 levels...I think it's fair to say that I have accomplished something "beyond the usual realm of nonelves...even extraordinary nonelves." My dwarf archer had better be damn impressive, and not have any elves I meet sniff at me and show me up without half trying.

No kidding. You may or may not beat an elf who has been equivalantly obsessed, but Joe The Elf will be outshot by you far more than Robert the Elf can possibly outshoot you. I'm not sure if that's good enough or not.

Assuming of course that 15 levels is "beyond the usual realm", but I think it is so that's just nitpicking.

Archtypes are cool, but they're also mutable (see: any nonstandard fantasy setting. Dark Sun is a good example). Many players enjoy playing the archtypes, but equally many enjoy defying the archtypes, simply because they are archtypes, and to try the odd duck, the rebel, the one-in-a-million.

Any RPG worth playing had better allow me to play a non-archtypal character and have it work. I'm all in favor of role-playing blowback from defying the norm - plot hooks and RP opportunities! - but my ability to kill monsters with pointy things should not suffer because my dwarf isn't an axeman, my elf isn't an archer, or my orc is a spellcaster.

I agree and disagree here.

On one hand, just because 90% of knights use swords does not mean that you should suffer for using a mace.

On the other hand"

If orcs really are less good at the things necessary to be good wizards, and that's just a racial limitation, oh fething well.

But if not...the fact that most orcs aren't pursuing it should not forbid you from doing so.

But I don't know how you give (assuming you want to give it at all, which is a seperate story) orcs a worse Intelligence than humans tend to have, say Intelligence influences wizardry, and then say "but it won't effect your orc".

Even if your orc can avoid the norm with a greater or lesser degree of struggle, if he's trying to do something his race sucks at, he's going to have a harder time.

That's the bit I want represented, and I'm at a loss for what mechanics do it. If there are no orcs with Intelligence 20, I can just declare that so and move on, and average orc is 3-19 without any modifiers, just tendancies.

But if orcs are challenged at Intelligence tasks more than nonorcs...how to show that without gimping your orc?

Going with the strengths of your race ought to be easier than succeeding at one of your race's weaknesses, but "easier" and "harder" do not mean "possible" and "not possible".

If you've a thought I'm overlooking, I would be absolutely delighted to hear it. Because if its a "challenge", you just have a hump to get over. And if you do get over it, you're as good as anyone else.

But how to represent that hump...

Elennsar wrote:No kidding. You may or may not beat an elf who has been equivalantly obsessed, but Joe The Elf will be outshot by you far more than Robert the Elf can possibly outshoot you. I'm not sure if that's good enough or not.

My bold.
This is the crux of the matter: may or may not. That sounds like an equal match to me. Obsesso the Elf and I are equally skilled, so we both (assuming identical conditions) have a 50/50 shot at victory.

If I'm dumb enough to fight him in the forest, he might have the edge...but if he fights me in the mountains, the advantage is mine. By all else being equal, equal-levels PCs should be equal.

Assuming of course that 15 levels is "beyond the usual realm", but I think it is so that's just nitpicking.

This holds true at any level, though. In a low-level game, 5th level is awesome and my 5th-level dwarf archer should have an equal chance to outshoot a 5th-level elf archer.

That's the bit I want represented, and I'm at a loss for what mechanics do it. If there are no orcs with Intelligence 20, I can just declare that so and move on, and average orc is 3-19 without any modifiers, just tendancies.

But if orcs are challenged at Intelligence tasks more than nonorcs...how to show that without gimping your orc?

For this specific example: Orcs suffer a -2 racial penalty on Int checks and Int-based skill checks.

Is it a perfect solution? No, but it does reflect "orcs are dumb" while still allowing me to play Orcstein the Wizard. Spellcasting is a lot more important than Int-based skills.

I also like the Iron Kingdoms solution: racial ability mods are optional. Most orcs take the +2 Str/-2 Int because most orcs are warriors, and the "strong and dumb" gene is dominant in orcus vulgaris. My orc, however, is a prodigy...he's smarter but weaker (in other words, equal to a human) which is why he's able to master arcane magic.

Going with the strengths of your race ought to be easier than succeeding at one of your race's weaknesses, but "easier" and "harder" do not mean "possible" and "not possible".

For 99% of any given race, yes.
PCs are the exceptions by definition.

Another thought (one of the few good ideas from Pathfinder) is a modification of the ol' favored class concept. Instead of ignoring an XP penalty (which shouldn't exist anyway), taking a level in your favored class grants you one extra skill point, because you pick up the skills so easily. Thus, most orcs would become barbarians, and orcish barbarians are more skilled than elven barbarians, because barbarism comes naturally to orcs.

Note that this has the net effects of giving orc barbarians more options, not higher numbers, because skill rank maximums are still in effects. More options = good.

If I'm dumb enough to fight him in the forest, he might have the edge...but if he fights me in the mountains, the advantage is mine. By all else being equal, equal-levels PCs should be equal.

I'd say 45-55 is also "may or may not". Anything more and we're expecting one guy to lose.

Would you be able to accept that?

This holds true at any level, though. In a low-level game, 5th level is awesome and my 5th-level dwarf archer should have an equal chance to outshoot a 5th-level elf archer.

Of course.

For this specific example: Orcs suffer a -2 racial penalty on Int checks and Int-based skill checks.

Is it a perfect solution? No, but it does reflect "orcs are dumb" while still allowing me to play Orcstein the Wizard. Spellcasting is a lot more important than Int-based skills.

As of the moment, I'd use that then. It means that Orcstein is less able than he would be otherwise, but your choice isn't ruled out entirely. But I'd like to discuss this a bit more before finalizing.

For 99% of any given race, yes.
PCs are the exceptions by definition.

PCs are AMONG the exceptions. PCs as the only humans who would even try to develop flying machines kind of exceptional is a bit much.

Still. PCs can be in the realm of freaks...I'm just adamantly opposed to "PCs -are- the freaks. Period. They're PCs!" attitude.

As for Pathfinder, I'm not sure...but something like that would work.

But if orcs are challenged at Intelligence tasks more than nonorcs...how to show that without gimping your orc?

You don't gimp the individual orc by literally not gimping the individual orc.

The individual just picks some trait like "Wimpy and Smart" instead of "Strong and Dumb" like any PC or named NPC can do. Because orcs are a race of individuals and some of those individuals are wimpy and smart like with any other remotely humanoid species.

I proposed the above most direct and versatile solution to your problem on page ONE. You continue to hum and haw and declare it an unsolvable problem and at best when faced with this sort of solution declare "Oh, maybe it works but it makes me unhappy or lacks orcness".

Well in that case shut the fuck up. You have a "problem" you literally don't want solved. You clearly don't understand the concept of "problem". A problem is something you actually want changed. You don't want it changed, you continue to disagree that it needs to be changed you face solutions to the problem and say "yes they would work, but they would solve the problem in doing so, which would make me sad inside for reasons I cannot properly explain".

Do you WANT gimped orc wizards or not? If you want that guess what? We know how to do it. If you don't then guess what? The answer (several answers in fact) are actually very easy.

But you want gimped orc wizards that are also simultaneously sorta not gimped maybe except you aren't sure? Sorry, no answer, go home and make a decision.

I don't want to have "can be equally as smart as humans" when the trait is "orcs aren't". Nor do I want to say "NO! No orc wizard ever!"

If you don't want orcs to have "less mentally capable" on their sheet at all, then it works to not have it on the orc trait list.

However, if it IS, it should not magically disappear for Talisman's orc just because Talisman is playing an orc.

Because, of course, a solution proposed by PL is the One True Answer.

Diversity is strength, mi amigo. Differing opinions are why we don't still think the stars are little gems set in a huge crystal dome with water on the other side.

Elennsar wrote:PCs are AMONG the exceptions. PCs as the only humans who would even try to develop flying machines kind of exceptional is a bit much.

Let me rephrase that.

Only unusual people would try to develop a flying machine, fair enough? >95% of a community wouldn't bother with such a thing until someone demonstrated that it could be done.

Only exceptional people could succeed at developing a flying machine.

PCs are exceptional (whether they choose to be exceptions is a separate issue, but the option must be available). They're the stars of the show, so they're by definiton more unusual and important than >95% of the world. I'm not talking about in-game social staus, but actual, real-world relevance.

High-level NPCs are also exceptional. They have to be in order to provide a challenge to the PCs.

Well, I was thinking the Dwarf would be able to wade in with his Axe or supplement his bow work with it for no penalty compared to the Bowman, who wades in with his knife or sword when they'd closed range.

Unless, of course, you have single schtick characters, which I'd like to avoid, but there is room for simpler games.

-Crissa

Only unusual people would try to develop a flying machine, fair enough? >95% of a community wouldn't bother with such a thing until someone demonstrated that it could be done.

Ja. Maybe even >99%. At this point, "all but a handful" so ignore my nitpicking.

Only exceptional people could succeed at developing a flying machine.

Yessss...

PCs are exceptional (whether they choose to be exceptions is a separate issue, but the option must be available). They're the stars of the show, so they're by definiton more unusual and important than >95% of the world. I'm not talking about in-game social staus, but actual, real-world relevance.

The problem, Talisman, is that I disagree that the PCs are the only actors whose actions have any impact on the setting, other than high level NPCs (who should be limited to "adversaries of the PCs" etc., though I don't think you're arguing that part).

If a level 5 character is (minimal level to be a) King's Guard, and the PCs are level 3, the King's Guards should be people you take seriously.

Now, you might not take them as seriously at 10th level and even less at 15th, depending on how much of an advantage over a lower level you get by being higher level (5 levels in D&D seems to be "they're not a big deal", 10 "it would take more time to roll your attack than for you to defeat them."), but they should not be magically irrelevant people because they're not bigshots.

The PCs are among those whose actions happen to be worth a damn. However, they may or may not be sidekicks to bigger shots. (If they are, sidekicks need to be -useful-...being a subordinate is one thing, being a minion is another thing entirely, and "PCs as minions" is something that would be wildly different than any campaign or novel I can imagine reading for very long.)

But sometimes, the PCs lose. Sometimes they lose to people the same level, sometimes higher level, etc.

However, PCs are always in the group whose actions matter. The group may be a large one or a small one, but they're always among those who matter.

To put it this way. Let's say the King has ten trusted knights and two players are playing knights. And being one of the king's trusted knights puts you in a position of significance in the setting (not just where the DM shines the spotlight).

Its reasonable to want to be (eventually, at least) among that ten. Its not reasonable, if and when you are among those ten, for you to outweigh the other eight because you don't have "N" before "PC".

Is this making sense?

Except, Lobster, that, while it balances everyone, it fails to establish anything shared in a race. Some people want that. And if other balance issues can be solved, presumably that one can actually be tackled on too, as opposed to having the correspondent game element gutted (which is, of course, not only viable but also definitionally easier than anything else).

Elennsar wrote:If you don't want orcs to have "less mentally capable" on their sheet at all, then it works to not have it on the orc trait list.

However, if it IS, it should not magically disappear for Talisman's orc just because Talisman is playing an orc.

Why the fuck not? Talisman wants to play a smart orc. Not a DUMB orc. He is playing a specific orc with a specific background that says "I'm smart" in it.

Holy shit how many times does it take?

Smart orcs just not existing is totally fucking ricockulous.

Talisman (hypothetically) wants to play one.

We can actually just let him do that

You keep presenting this as a tragedy of failed orcness and seeking a compromise.

Well guess what? It's a compromise with STUPIDITY. "Sorry Talisman (bitch) we had to come up with an orcified solution (bitch), so there ARE smart orcs but you can't entirely be one (bitch) we won't gimp you entirely (bitch) we'll just gimp you a BIT (bitch) oh. And we expect you to thank us (bitch) for letting you play a wizard with gimped intelligence (bitch)."

I don't know but I'd say from the players position, being told that we just plain can't reach a solution unless he compromises and at LEAST sucks in SOME measurable way for making the "smart orc" selection in his background fluff then I'm not hearing a compromise with the much wanked upon but never properly explained motivation of "Preserving Orcness". I'm hearing a game designer or GM screaming "Smart Orc? FUCK YOU BITCH, GET GIMPED AND LIKE IT, BITCH, YEAH YOU LIKE IT!".

Maybe you should go play some D20 Modern. It seemed to be big on the bitch gimping theme.

Bigode wrote:Except, Lobster, that, while it balances everyone, it fails to establish anything shared in a race.

Why can't you just say "usually +2 str/-2 int" like the MM says "usually evil"?

Smart orcs just not existing is totally fucking ricockulous.

Why not? Its pretty believable that there are no smart apes.

Or oozes. Or dumb mind flayers.

So, if you don't want "orcs are mentally inferior" on the sheet, then don't write it as an orc trait to begin with.

Surgo: See above. If its "usually", then we say "usually" and its not a trait of orcishness...its just a trait that a lot of orcs happen to have, like how a lot of Scandinavians happen to be blonde.

Surgo wrote:

Bigode wrote:Except, Lobster, that, while it balances everyone, it fails to establish anything shared in a race.

Why can't you just say "usually +2 str/-2 int" like the MM says "usually evil"?

First off, at no point I claimed anything to be my own opinion. Second, I like it how everyone focuses on the most meaningless part of a race: the little numbers. What if I want all members of a race, and no one else, to actually have an unique ability? Of course, one might argue for a defective not having it - but you might still fix it as racial to block access to other races.

Elennsar wrote:Surgo: See above. If its "usually", then we say "usually" and its not a trait of orcishness...its just a trait that a lot of orcs happen to have, like how a lot of Scandinavians happen to be blonde.

Let's try a simple exercize:

Imagine a Scandinavian.

Imagine a Somali.

Did you imagine people with different appearances? Even though there certainly are people who look completely different from the image, there are, in fact, definite traits that one image will have that the other won't.

Who's to say that you can't do the same for orc traits, other than you?

Bigode wrote:Except, Lobster, that, while it balances everyone, it fails to establish anything shared in a race.

You got funny ears, a shared ancestral culture/back story (that you do not personally have to be chained to in your actual life style) and the secure knowledge that some unspecified majority of your race for some reason happens to have traits like "Big and Dumb" or "Foaming Savage" and that may or may not have a direct impact on game play through characters other than your own.

That is really enough. I mean if you write "Grew up in the streets of Nasty City" in your background what does that say about your abilities and class? Should it gimp you if you go for being a Paladin or Honest-Friendly-Neighbourhood-Priestess? Isn't that just a matter of your characters associations and background and NOT something that should have enforced and potentially detrimental effects when combined with other character defining choices?

As repeatedly explained to Ellinsar. The shared traits of a race are a matter of the majority, something by definition to be forced only on nameless seething masses of NPCs. The second you highlight an individual it is just plain mother fucking insanely massively UNIMAGINABLY stupid to enforce strongly measurable identical traits.

Do you and I and every human on earth ALL have a +2 bonus to Listen checks? Isn't that utterly insanely ridiculously stupid?

Individual variation, that's the big ticket here. For all the wanking over strongly measurable racial bias the fact of the matter is that character creation is about (or at its very most important is about) designing specific individuals.

Modelling individual capabilities is massively more interesting to us than modelling vast faceless identical multitudes. The second RPGs became about playing characters with names and back stories this whole "All Orcs get X like it or lump it" became redundant counter productive SHIT.

It's all about goals. Much as Frank recently said, racial gimping and the like work in scales where characters lack (or mostly lack) names and individuality. It's totally and obviously self evident that it just plain doesn't work when its that one individual guy over there.

Since unique features would be well, unique and specific and special, that's my reason for not naming any for either how I'd do orcs or elves or dwarves.

Who's to say that you can't do the same for orc traits, other than you?

If the only "Orcish trait" is green skin, then any orc without green skin isn't orcish.

And if we can say "all orcs have green skin", why we are forbidden from saying "all orcs have ___." or "all orcs lack ____" for that matter is a mystery.

If orc bonuses and elf bonuses are equally useful to "adventurer", the fact that some types of adventurer are easier for elves and harder for orcs and vice-versa isn't even a balance problem.

So if you want orcs to be merely cosmetically different with no strengths we don't have or weaknesses we don't have or distinctive only-orcs-have-this-at-all as opposed to only-humans-have-this-at-all or whatever, what makes an orc anything other than another human?

PL: Is there a reason for mispelling my username other than to demonstrate that you're too focused on being insulting to care?

Elennsar wrote:Surgo: See above. If its "usually", then we say "usually" and its not a trait of orcishness...its just a trait that a lot of orcs happen to have, like how a lot of Scandinavians happen to be blonde.

Wait, what? No race or species in the history of the world has a set of traits that is 100% shared and I don't see why D&D land has to be the same way. I mean, seriously. Try to name something for humans outside of looks and very basic morphology that every single human has and I'll show you a weird genetic counterexample.

Elennsar wrote:If orc bonuses and elf bonuses are equally useful to "adventurer", the fact that some types of adventurer are easier for elves and harder for orcs and vice-versa isn't even a balance problem.

But players are forced to choose between these types of adventurer, and having one of these suck at adventuring is a bad thing.

Because the phrase "...very basic morphology" can be abused to mean "oh, well, see, that's not what I mean by basic.", you mind spelling out what that means?

Bears do not have the same range of strength and size as humans. That does not mean all bears have identical Strength scores (hardly), but if bears have say, 18 on average, and we roll 3d6 for them, that means even a puny bear is as strong as an average human.

Meanwhile, mentally, they don't have the same range of brainpower.

Subsitute "ape" for 'bear" if you want something closer to human.

Orcs can easily have something similar, if less extreme.

But players are forced to choose between these types of adventurer, and having one of these suck at adventuring is a bad thing.

No, it isn't. Its a bad thing if orcs make bad wizards and wizards are the only class that does halfway decently, but if orcs are fine 90% of the time (better 10%, equal 80%), being weaker 10% is not a problem.

Now, if you want to be an orc wizard, and you want it to be playable alongside a elf wizard, then we need something to do about that, but pointing out that its not a viable option is not a Bad Thing.

Not all options will be equal if any bonuses ever favor any decision more than any other decision, which I think is impossible without literally having a bonus to "adventure" equal to your level, which you roll for everything, and everyone gets the same number at the same level.

Elennsar wrote: but if orcs are fine 90% of the time (better 10%, equal 80%), being weaker 10% is not a problem.

No.

-Crissa

The problem is that if I want to play an orc wizard for some reason, then I am in that 10% that sucks, and so 100% of my experience with that character is sucking.

If you can't accept being equally good at eight out of ten classes, better at one, and worse at another, then you can't have anyone ever be better than anyone else at anything.

How sickeningly bland.

You wind up with race-as-cosmetic.

Humans and orcs might be close enough for that. Maybe. Humans and ogres? Humans and pixies? Humans and mind flayers?

No thanks.