Question: If you pick-up a roleplaying game with a lot of backstory (and it's own world), presenting a few different sapient species, do you generally expect to have rules for playing all of them? Or are you happier given just one angle?

I was originally thinking of giving players just the option of choosing from one species (more of a faction, really), but now I wonder if that will cause frustration. I'm sure there isn't a 'right' answer here, but there's probably a general consensus on what is more liked.

If I understand your question, then I would say any “major” race or faction should be playable at some point. It may not come in the basic rules, but should be open at some point to the players. However if it is a minor race or faction then I do not expect to see it automatically in the rules.

Let me use Traveller as an example. I expect that at some point a player should be able to play Humans, Aslan, or Vargr. But I do not expect to see rules for playing a Bwap or a Ael Yael. Not that it would not be fun, but their role in the game background is so slight I would not expect it.

Daniel

Hey G-M,

If it was you buying the game, would you expect rules for playing all of them? Or would you personally be happier given just one?

Paul

If I understand your question, then I would say any “major” race or faction should be playable at some point. It may not come in the basic rules, but should be open at some point to the players.

Hey G-M,

If it was you buying the game, would you expect rules for playing all of them? Or would you personally be happier given just one?

For me, I think it's important to have descriptions (character traits, mannerisms, etc.) for the so-called major races and then leave the rest to the GM.  I consider it a balancing act between giving the GM something to work with without tying the GM's hands.  As for actually playing a particular race, if there are a bunch of different races walking around in the "world", sooner or later a player is going to say "Why can't I roll one of those for my character?"  Again, with that in mind, it's important to give the GM something to go by.

Of course, if you're creating your own game, you could include other playable races in future expansions.  I say never say never as to which races can be played.  :-)

--William
Imperium Chronicles

Hi!
  I don't want to sound like an ass, but the question is moot.
  For instance, ditv only lets you play one type of character (not even more than one race). Everyone is a dog. There are no rules for playing anything else and it is wildly popular.
  And D&D lets you pretty much play anything. And of course it is wildly popular.

  What they have in common is this, they are both tightly built games with a solid theme that supports the designers' choice (closed vs open).

  I'd say come up with a design theme and and then decide based on that theme. For instance, if your theme was "exploring faction vs faction politics" then it would be more interesting to let the players experience all the different factions...

  I hope that helps, good luck man!

I don't want to sound like an ass, but the question is moot.

Hi!
  Don't get me wrong, it does matter. But only so far as what the game promises. I mean, are you telling me ditv got bad reviews on rpg.net?
  But a random poll asking "Do you like A or B?" does not matter. If you have a theme that is strongly defined in your mind (that's what I meant by strong theme), then you already know what you want/need. And if you do not, then no amount of polling will make your theme stronger, will it?
  If you want to design a game where all the players are on the same faction, that's a good thing. I want to play that game. I mean how many D&D games have been ruined because all the players made evil chars except for the douche that made a paladin (or vice versa).
  If you want a more trad example of a one-faction game look no further than Pendragon, Paranoia, Call of Cthulu and more. There are plenty of games that have the kind of player constraints you are talking about (and even more harsh constraints) that are popular, fun and get good reviews (even on rpg.net).
  I think the kind of games that get bad reviews are the ones where the coolest parts of the game are not playable or that promise a wide-open customizable world, but slap you down if you want to make certain kinds of characters. It doesn't sound like that is what you have in mind, so whatever you decide should be fine...
  The reality is someone will complain no matter what you do and that bad game reviews are just as good for sales as good ones.
  Anyways, good luck with your design man!

If I understand dindenver’s point it does make sense.

If the game is set in a world where the race X is the underdog race fighting for it’s existence and the big mean nasty race Z is the clear enemy then you may want to limit the players to race X. And dindenver’s point is that the players may not mind.

But if the game is focused around a world with 15 races and no one race is clearly the “enemy” of the players. Then you will want to offer them rules for the various races and players will ask for it most likely.

So the game will have a big impact on this question.

Daniel

Hey G-M,

Back in the late 80s I had the idea of running an AD&D campaign in which all the players were clerics from the same monastery. The holy relics of their monastery had been stolen. The game would be about the quests to recover them.

I was never able to get anyone interested in playing the campaign. They couldn't get over the "everyone's a cleric" restriction.

Years later I understand why. AD&D apportions the necessary elements of effectiveness across the character classes, such that class homogeneity is seen as a serious limitation. (I was almost never a player, almost always GM, and was thinking of the cleric requirement as the gauntlet of a challenge for players who prided themselves on their tactical and strategic abilities. Well, perhaps it seemed too impossible a challenge. They weren't interested.)

Anyway, what I can say, is that I've never seen a game that apportioned effectiveness similarly across character races, such that species homogeneity across the player characters would be seen as the same kind of impossible challenge.

And, as Dave says, you don't see consumer outrage over the "you're a Dog" restriction in DitV. This is because no player is subject to interdictions of thematic potential or tactical effectiveness that the others aren't.

So, maybe the question to ask yourself is how many races you need to have to not be witholding from the players some of the full range of thematic and tactical and strategic effectiveness that your game's setting and core thematic conflicts promise to its protagonists. As long as you're not witholding from the players something the game world seems to promise to its protagonists, you're not going to see any meaningful customer outrage.

Paul

To further add in the direction of Paul and Dave:

How does the "race differences" comes into play.

The first question that came to me when I read your first post is: What is this game about anyway? which lead me to say more or less the same thing as Dave in his first post!

So, what do the characters do in that game and what do the players do? How the "race choice" aspect interfere with the answers of the previous 2 questions.

In the spirit of answering the original question as I think Grinning intented it, I'm going to assume that the game would be well-designed either way, and it'd probably be somewhat traditional in that it'd have an adventuring party, elaborate setting and all that. If the game were really original there would simply be no way to answer the question conclusively, because my preference in this minor detail would be wholly dependent on whether the chosen solution supported the overall structure of the game or not. With that in mind, let me tell you what I'd want from that hypothetical traditional-ish game:

What I'd like from that particular game would be to stop fucking around with non-pertinent character options! I want the game to only have 2-4 chargen choices that are all superduper-interesting and impactful, and fuck me if I see anything interesting in choosing whether my character will have long ears or a beard. Better yet, make the super-macho demon-warrior marysue species with tits a prestige option a player can take after collecting 10,000 xp with the usual losers they have to play in the hazing initiation part of the campaign. By the same principle, the psychic fishes with sloping pear-shaped heads and three eyes can be opened for player access when their last characters reincarnate as such. And that only happens if they performed great religious crimes in their last lives. The mandatory cat-people can be characters anybody gets to play, but only if they bring their own cat-ears and are willing to start the game in a malaria-infested jungle, with the first adventure always being the same one about finding your way north. There's your race choosing system in all its glory.

So yes, I guess that I'd prefer to not have that racial option if it's just going to be more of the same. If you don't have any overwhelming structural need to add it (and if you need to ask us if you do, then trust me - you don't), it's just going to be one more meaningless choice that will lead player expectations about the game's theme astray while also increasing the necessary set-up time, all with no discernible goal. Much more interesting to focus on play-significant steps in the set-up procedures: ideally each and every step in your chargen procedure is dripping with interesting potentiality. That's why I don't include those dull "create a concept" and "name the character" steps in my character creation guidelines: if it doesn't allow you to roll the dice (or do anything else interesting, for you pedants out there), fuck it in the ear, as I hear the French say nowadays.

Also, to be serious and non-judgemental for a bit: in my own fantasy gaming I find the non-human species a zillion times cooler when they are otherness the players encounter via play instead of otherness the players portray. Of course, this might well be because D&D is full of shit and doesn't actually give the players any tools for portraying their character's race in any meaningful manner, so it just sits there tantalizing the group until all the dwarves and elves and gnomes have turned into bad cliches in the heads of all roleplayers for all eternity.

Grinning Moon,

Here's my two cents.  Note however that this might be shaded by the fact that, in general, non-human races make me itch.

When you mentioned reviews on RPGnet, that made me go "hm?"  This is what I saw going on at that moment (although it may be inaccurate):  you don't feel strongly about this issue (which suggests that it's not particularly important to you) and that's why you don't ALREADY have a hard answer for it, but you're worried that it's important to OTHER PEOPLE and that they might condemn your game for not dealing with it properly. 

Now, here's the way I deal with a situation like that:  if it's not important to me, it's not important at all.  If it's important to somebody else, well, they're clearly idiots.  I don't tell them that, but I think it, and I believe it's perfectly okay to think it.  But that doesn't mean that I close my mind to the issue; if it comes up later, I can still think about it and investigate it and analyze it.  If and when I realize that the issue IS important to me (which has so far coincided with a hard answer originating from my own brain), then I change my mind.  Those other people are no longer idiots; I was an idiot, at least about this particular issue, until now; now I'm better.  I do this all the time, and I believe it's a perfectly healthy learning process.

Well, that's my two cents.  Take it for whatever, and perhaps with a grain of salt, because I am something of an egoistic sonofabitch.

-Marshall

G-M,

Another thing to consider...

Are you planning to produce a single stand-alone game? Or has the option of game supplements and follow-up books been considered?

If you're doing a one off, then there are two ways you can look at it. I'd agree with the point raised earlier, that if you're going for a specific theme in your game and one race fits that theme, then stick with that race. Hell, it ain't called "Cats in the Vineyard" so anyone who picked up the game and wanted to play a Cat would be an idiot (or so laterally minded that they probably wouldn't fit with any of the groups who do play DitV).

If you're doing a one off without a specific theme, then you'd probably consider bulking out the book with those extra races. Dedicated a bit to the types of stories and themes that those races personify.

Of course, this second option is probably more clearly done when those other races are presented in their own rule books. I know that there are plenty of people around here who despise White Wolf, but I'd propose a similar idea to the world of darkness and generate a game for each major race. This game would focus on the stories of that race. A skeletal set of core rules to bind them together and an offshoot book that really gets into the meat of the racial subject matter.

Just some ideas...

V

I do think there is a tendency for people to get bored with established PC types once they get used to them, have explored their possibilities, have used them play and tested them possibly to destruction.  So once a sufficient quantity of play has passed, people start to wonder about other character types that they might be able to use and explore.  And I think this happens more where the NPC character type is interesting in its own right, and especially where the NPC-type is arguably more interesting, or seems to be more interesting, than the stock PC types.  A good example of this is the way that Drow characters suddenly became quite popular very soon after they were introduced as a unique monster, some people just couldn't resist the colour associated with them.

But I don't think this means that a rule-set has to ship initially with this opportunity, it may well be much better to have initial play focus on a few stock character types, and to leave groups to manage this process on their own.

To further add in the direction of Paul and Dave:

How does the "race differences" comes into play.

The first question that came to me when I read your first post is: What is this game about anyway? which lead me to say more or less the same thing as Dave in his first post!

So, what do the characters do in that game and what do the players do? How the "race choice" aspect interfere with the answers of the previous 2 questions.

What I'd like from that particular game would be to stop fucking around with non-pertinent character options! I want the game to only have 2-4 chargen choices that are all superduper-interesting and impactful, and fuck me if I see anything interesting in choosing whether my character will have long ears or a beard. Better yet, make the super-macho demon-warrior marysue species with tits a prestige option a player can take after collecting 10,000 xp with the usual losers they have to play in the hazing initiation part of the campaign. By the same principle, the psychic fishes with sloping pear-shaped heads and three eyes can be opened for player access when their last characters reincarnate as such. And that only happens if they performed great religious crimes in their last lives. The mandatory cat-people can be characters anybody gets to play, but only if they bring their own cat-ears and are willing to start the game in a malaria-infested jungle, with the first adventure always being the same one about finding your way north. There's your race choosing system in all its glory.

When you mentioned reviews on RPGnet, that made me go "hm?"  This is what I saw going on at that moment (although it may be inaccurate):  you don't feel strongly about this issue (which suggests that it's not particularly important to you) and that's why you don't ALREADY have a hard answer for it, but you're worried that it's important to OTHER PEOPLE and that they might condemn your game for not dealing with it properly.

Now, here's the way I deal with a situation like that:  if it's not important to me, it's not important at all.  If it's important to somebody else, well, they're clearly idiots.  I don't tell them that, but I think it, and I believe it's perfectly okay to think it.  But that doesn't mean that I close my mind to the issue; if it comes up later, I can still think about it and investigate it and analyze it.  If and when I realize that the issue IS important to me (which has so far coincided with a hard answer originating from my own brain), then I change my mind.  Those other people are no longer idiots; I was an idiot, at least about this particular issue, until now; now I'm better.  I do this all the time, and I believe it's a perfectly healthy learning process.

Another thing to consider...

Are you planning to produce a single stand-alone game? Or has the option of game supplements and follow-up books been considered?

I do think there is a tendency for people to get bored with established PC types once they get used to them, have explored their possibilities, have used them play and tested them possibly to destruction.  So once a sufficient quantity of play has passed, people start to wonder about other character types that they might be able to use and explore.  And I think this happens more where the NPC character type is interesting in its own right, and especially where the NPC-type is arguably more interesting, or seems to be more interesting, than the stock PC types.  A good example of this is the way that Drow characters suddenly became quite popular very soon after they were introduced as a unique monster, some people just couldn't resist the colour associated with them.

Oh God no. No, no, no. I realize that lots of people like supplements, but man, I HATE them. I've hated them ever since I had to spend half a paycheck picking-up Rifts world books for months just so I didn't feel like I otherwise had an incomplete game (AaaRRRggGG!!! even just thinking about every time I had to read that stupid fucking line, 'See World Book X for more details...' in a new world book I just finished buying, infuriates me beyond measure. I felt like it was a real victory whenever a book was referenced that I actually already owned and could immediately turn to). Why, oh WHY, release a product that is effectively 'somewhat' complete? Why not just slap-in the extra few hours and pages of work to bring that fucker full circle, then start on a totally new project? I mean, I wouldn't mind the occassional expansion or two - but supplements just get retarded.

Grinning wrote:
You are exactly right, my good sir. The issue isn't at all important to me; I know exactly how I want to play my game, and the way I'd play it wouldn't have any need for terrifying human invaders to be available as characters. But I'm not necessarily the only one going to play it, and no doubt other people will see the issue under a different light.

Marshall wrote: Here's what are your responsibilities:

1.  Write about something you care about.
2.  Do it honestly.