I've nearly completed my game. But I'm finding that I've betrayed some of my own design goals. The game I've made is somewhere between tactical decision making and story now.

I wanted to make "Races" matter less in my game than in other games.  But I'm finding that some races are just too powerful at what they do.  The bonuses they have are often too tempting.  I think any bonus may be too tempting.  Should I just resign myself to the fact that people who want to excel at savoire faire are going to pick one race, and the fighter type is going to pick the other?  Or should I try and diminish the bonuses or remove them altogether?

Part of the problem, I think, is that the fiction has many races being rarities.  But inevitably, groups are made up of the rarest races in the game. However, I totally understand why the players are playing the exotic races... they've already played a dozen other humans or near-humans.  How do I model scarcity into the game so that it conveys the proper flavor without becoming cumbersome? 

Hi.
Do you know of the System Shadowrun uses for this?
If no, check it up, or ask, and i or someone else'll explain it.

Other than that: Diminish the Bonuses and/or Add/Worsen the Flaws for the specific Races.

Creative Cat

Well that is a long standing problem of the FRPG genre.  Right from the Tolkien model of a multi-racial party in a context in which the races were distinctly localised.

I can't think of any way to get around it without applying brute force in an unsatisfactory manner.  I do however question why fantasy needs multiple races at all; it'c become a convention with little point to it.

Hmm. How about a point economy across players during chargen. Certain character options (play a Squire of Scannet, or a worshipper of Ighty) give a player points they can't use themselves, but can gift to other players, and other character options require these points. So, it becomes a conversation:

"Hey guys. I think I want to play an Aedheric Ghostelf, but I'd need two gift points. What are you guys thinking?"
"Well, I could totally play a Coi Shieldbearer, which would give me two points to gift to you. But I'd want a Marn Shield, so I'd be looking for a gift point from someone else."

Explain how Shadowrun does it Catelf.

Paul

Ok, .... explaining the "Shadowrun way" on this:
Essentially, things like Basic Attributes, Skills, Resources(including Magical), most be noted in a Priority Order, like A, B or C.

You get the most Points in the Area you Give Priority A, and less to that one you place in B, and the least to that in C.

However, there are two more things that MUST be Prioritated as well, Namely Metahuman(Race) and Magic.

So, you have A, B, C D, and E!               (I really think SR has down to F, but this is how it works.)

The limitation, is that you Must place, for instance, Metahuman/Race in Priority C, B, or even A, if you are supposed to have a "non-human" alternative, meaning that you'll definitely will have less in one other Prioritated Area. (They used to force Priority A to all Metahumans, but has since changed them to needing B or C.)

Putting Race in A, for instance, means that you don't get any Points from this Priority, and since A gives the most Points to place, otherwise, it is not a Priority one sacrifices lightly for the buff of being .... something else than Human.

This makes at least all power players seriously consider a Human instead of an orc, for instance ..... And several others as well.

Infomative Cat

Hey, that's sharp. Thanks.

Paul

Well, I'd say that most every race is balanced with every other race. It's just that certain races are better than other races.  Elves make perfect warrior-mages.  Humans are fantastic jack-of-all trades.  Kitmal are awesome spies. Pershek are fantastic shield warriors.  But if you take a Pershek and make a mage, you're going to be at a disadvantage.  The only thing I can think of doing is weighing each advantage with a disadvantage.  Make elves better at fighter magic, but worse at healing magic.  Make Pershek stronger with a shield, but make them slower to attack while using a shield.

I can't think of any way to get around it without applying brute force in an unsatisfactory manner.  I do however question why fantasy needs multiple races at all; it'c become a convention with little point to it.

Dave,
  One thing that comes to mind for me is the unisystem solution. In the Buffy the Vampire Slayer game allows you to play a Witch and a Librarian in the same campaign. The trick is, the Witches and Slayers get their full powers. While, the Librarians and Jocks are less powerful, but they get plot points that they can use to get last minute saves and miracle coincidences that occur in their favor. Maybe you need to include a mechanic like that that gives "sub-optimal" characters a bonus of some kind.

Hm, i may have been a bit ... muddy, in my description of the Shadowrun System, so to answer your question:

For Shadowrun, why would you put race as anything but C?

I'm clearly with you on the idea of keeping races(although, i don't like the word "Race" in cases when they are really different Species.....)

Good idea!

In my hypothetical eventual game, I tried to start with the differences of cultural history to my races (basically I'm aware of how you can use them to flag up cultural stereotypes and people's relationships to them, so they are working like more extreme versions of cultures), based on their differences from others, and working back from there to how that would express itself in conflicts. Mostly, I'm leaning towards setting starting skills by background and letting them range from there, possibly with culture specific skills.

In other words, mechanically people from different races can be similar, but if so it's because one of them is giving up his culture and sort of living between two of them.

That might change, but the idea is that to create a wizard from a magic-less race (someone always wants to do it) you will end up magically equivalent to someone else, but with a tortuous backstory which is actually represented on the sheet (via some kind of lifepath system/culture trait acquisition probably).

Can you use this kind of thinking? Make characters of uncommon proficiencies not disadvantaged but weird? I presume that's pretty much why they'll be picking that combination, for it's story effects. It seems to fit with your characterisations of origins as well. But it may be that you want persistent differences between the groups as this model does tend to mush people together over time (sort of almost a goal). Do you really want werewolf horseriders beating out natives despite the horse's natural fear of them?

Other solutions:
The D&D 3 method of "a prestige class for every bad combination", adding some extra melding rules that only that combination can get, very liable to under or overcompensate.
Create the traits so some players can compensate for each other, so those closer to being jack of all trades can assist each other in their respective fields.

But what about the other side, the optimal build? Well one classic way to dodge optimal types of anything is to make their success more conditional, sort of as Catelf has suggested, but I would actually go more with things under your control, such as having disadvantages in certain situations. Stick it on the interconnect between the group and the environment, and make it flexible enough (ie a tendency to be unobservant leading to people having to compensate for them rather than kryptonite!), and you should be able to add advice so the GM can autobalance for the group.

Also why are these guys rare? Do they not have many babies?

I like Paul's idea, it suggests to me having a point's score for the whole group, that is not power (directly), but unlikelyness! If your problem is that people are creating groups that stretch suspension of disbelief, then just stick that level of suspension of disbelief right in there, as a dial that people can shift as they like, and as they do, gain an idea of the norms of the setting.

Well, this is the biggest thing.  One of the races can fly. I've balanced every race against that ability, which is a powerful ability.  That means every race has these traits that make them as powerful as the ability to fly. Unfortunately, those traits have made the races highly polarized.

I have this really neat idea that's basically a spin off of shadowrun's ranking system. Right now I'm really infatuated with the idea, but I'm trying to figure out if it actually fits into THIS game. 

Basically, the way it works is you choose a Race, a Birthplace, a Status and a Class.  There's also skills.  You then rank each one A, B, C, D and E.  For races, you would get the ability for the rank you chose and every one lower. In order to take that race, you'd have to allocate AT LEAST the rank equal to the bold lettering (because it's a physical attribute). For example.

Pershek
A.  +2 Str, +1 Vit
B.  Enrage
C.  Mane of Thorns
D.  Pershek's Swiftness
E.  Body Slam

Human
A. Human Versatility
B. Human Spirit
C. Human Ingenuity
D. +1 skill
E. +1 Cha

2) For birthplace, there'd be similar boons to race. 
3) For status, you'd get a caste (A would be be high nobility, E would be penniless street urchin).
4) For classes, mages would have to be class A.  Every other class gets 1 to 5 class abilities depending on the rank chosen.  (In my game, you get character points that allow you to get class abilities of your choosing, so that's taken care of). 
5) For skills, you'd get 10, 8, 6, 4 or 2 skills depending on your ranking. 

This goes back to, "How complicated do I want to make my game?"  It certainly makes it more crunchy, but the whole game already ends up in the realm of crunch anyways. 

Okey....

How's this then:
First, the Flyers.
If they are bird-like, know that birds in reality has a hollow bone structure.
This may also make them easier to  get hurt .......
.............................................................................
Also, your interpretation of the Priority system reminds me of a Mechanism that's often been used by White Wolf in their Storytelling Games.
It clearly allows for "Kin" or even "Hybrid" versions.

Since you now have worked the Origins into 5 "Levels", then, to limit the use of Origins, you may not need the Priority System ........

Like this:
When Origins is to be chosen, allow only 5 Points("Levels"), not more.
So, you can make a Character thar has 1 "Level" each of Human, Pershek, Flyer, Tundra Born, and Kitmal,
OR a Full 5 "Level" Werewolf, OR  2 Kitmal & 3 Human, and so on!

Hm?

I never properly answered Joywriter. 

<quote>Also why are these guys rare? Do they not have many babies? </quote>

They're only rare in the part of the world the game takes place in.  I guess I think that for story purposes it's more interesting if only a few people in the group are foreigners.  It's kind of like old westerns where one guy is an Indian. If the whole group was Indians, it wouldn't be special anymore.  In addition, it would be really weird and out of place for a group of Indians to be running around and enforcing the law. 

I find the D&D way of fixing things to be sloppy and inconsistent.

Catelf, that's an interesting idea. For some reason though, I feel like it is more "gamy" than ranking. Like, as soon as you're spending a pool of points, it isn't about which origin you choose, but how far you can stretch your points.  I know that's true of the ranking system as well, but it's a more forced constraint. 

How about another mix:

Origin, Birthplace, Status, Class and Skills. A, B, C, D and E.
If you are a "Regular Human", you don't have to place Origin Anywhere, so therefor just put it at lowest(That is also how Shadowrun Works!), that is: E.

Now the question is:
Do you still want characters to be able to have more than one Origin?

If Yes, then treat Priority A as 4 "Origin Levels", B as 3, C as 2, D as 1, and E as None.
Or make it from 5-1 instead, but that would mean that even a "Regular Human" has a Level 1 Origin.

If no, I just understood what you meant with the sentence below:

In order to take that race, you'd have to allocate AT LEAST the rank equal to the bold lettering (because it's a physical attribute)

Hey David,

David wrote:

Jo wrote: Also why are these guys rare? Do they not have many babies?

They're only rare in the part of the world the game takes place in.  I guess I think that for story purposes it's more interesting if only a few people in the group are foreigners.  It's kind of like old westerns where one guy is an Indian. If the whole group was Indians, it wouldn't be special anymore.

Hi,

Tangentially, Traveller and 1st ed (don't know about subsequent ed'ns) MegaTraveller handled the exotic very handily.

Want to play an Aslan?  Congrats.  You're a big honkin' cat-human.  Please roll your stats just like anyone else (no, I'm sorry, you won't find the section on "Aslan Modifiers")

There's ample colour that spews out of a well-described culture.  Taking an Aslan character or a Vargr character was a sufficient statement about what play would be like.  In reality, they were prototype's for Paul's "more than human" and "less than human" in My Life with Master.

Consider divorcing mechanical impact from species.  Let your colour description do the work.

Excelsior!
D

Arrrgh, screen time, my mortal enemy, you strike again! 

One of the reasons I kind of liked the idea of ranked char gen was because each section of character generation has a really cool thing you can be.  Like I imagine each of the following things would require "A Rank" to be.
In Origins, you can be a Pershek (which many players are really drawn towards) or a flying Kefla.
In Status, you can be a Noble (which has its perks)
In Birthplace, you can be a Vendarian (which is a highly advanced magical society)
In Classes, you can be a Mage 
With Skills, you can do a lot more, which is going to mean more screen time (If I can tame an animal and repair that engine, I'm doing twice as much)

Right now, you can be a Pershek, Vendarian, Mage and everybody has the same number of skills. I have no system for Status in my game, even though its become an intricate part of the setting. 

Darcy, I think divorcing mechanical impact from species is a great idea.  However, I'm literally sewing the last seams closed on my first game I've ever made.  (The core book is coming in at 200 pages and I have 400 other pages of support material made).  In some ways, my game is perfect in every way for me. The problem is, my game expectations have changed over 4 years. My idea of a perfect game isn't what it was 4 years ago.  (4 years ago, I looked at races as mechanical advantages. Today, I look at them as story advantages)  So, I'm seeing if I can make the current design suit me better, because truthfully, the races fit the type of game it is. 

Perhaps I should do nothing and leave things as they are. 30 minute character generation is nice. I really can't decide what to do and I feel these final few "flaws" are preventing me from just finishing the whole thing. 

David wrote:
Perhaps I should do nothing and leave things as they are. 30 minute character generation is nice. I really can't decide what to do and I feel these final few "flaws" are preventing me from just finishing the whole thing. 

I just read that back and it seems pretty unclear what I was going for, here's a rephrasing:

Say you have a pyramid of qualities, you might say that certain qualities may only sit at a certain hight on the pyramid or higher, say on a pyramid with four levels, flight may only appear on the top two, as either the ability to glide or full flying ability. I really love that idea.

I'm probably going to do this.  I don't think it is going to take much more to make the changes. 

What I really need to figure out is how to fix the other 2 perpetual flaws I have.

Which are those sorry? I can only spot one outstanding problem in this thread, and that is "a team of indians", which I think can be solved in the same way as the old "party of all wizards" problem, especially now that class and race are equalised by the new char-gen system.

What are the other problems? Something to do with another element of preference shift?

I didn't mention any other problems I'm having, but here they are.
1) I'm unhappy with my system for resolving social conflict
2) I'm unhappy with my system for players giving narrative input.

I have a new idea of what to do for #1.  I'm still at a loss of what I want to do with #2. I have another thread where I'm discussing #1 (it is also in playtesting).  Please go there to discuss it, but here's the post.

My new idea for resolving social conflict is for each player (and NPC) to have a social 'HP' pool. They declare their goals and decide if they both want to engage in the social duel. If not, they make a compromise or walk away. The player who seems to be making the argument goes first (the initiator). He rolls an attack argument against the defense argument. If the initiator loses, he can spend 1 'HP' to try again.

A second round is performed with the initiator on the defense. If the defender loses his attack argument, he can spend 1 'HP' to try again. 

This continues until one side gives up. If one side loses the argument, they can attempt a compromise.  They declare the compromise. (The more reasonable it is, the more likely it will be taken up.)  Another attack is made (the person asking for the compromise makes the attack argument).  If he succeeds, the compromise is put into place. HOWEVER, the overall winner can spend 1 'HP' to negate the compromise entirely. 

At any point, one side can lose instead of losing more 'HP'.  'HP' are regained as GM rewards and 1 point each scene. If a player has no HP to spend, that's it.

If a player describes their actions, they can get critical success and can prevent botches.

Is there any leeway intended here?

For example, giving it a rating so we can more easily see what people want, the amount the GM wants these creatures to be rare is 90 (out of 100)
The amount players want it them to be rare about 5 out of 100.

Now, from this thread it looks like your trying to design it to force it to exactly 90 (or whatever number represents your want of these races being rare).

There's no leeway going to be designed in, so although you want them rare, if the players aren't that interesed in them being rare, they are a bit less rare?

If you get what I mean.

Callan, on the surface my issue was "People playing too much of X."  In reality, what I wanted was "Equal distribution of cool stuff."

It's kind of like a GURPS/Traveler game I participated in recently.  One character had psychic powers, ownership of the spaceship, captain-ship of the spaceship, unimaginable wealth, status and fame.  I was a really great astronomer and merchant (but the other character was in a better position to be a merchant).  There wasn't an equal balance of cool stuff in the game. 

In my game system, everybody had all the cool stuff, which made it not all that cool.  (Its kind of like flat panel TVs. Nearly everybody who wants one has one.  They aren't as cool as when they cost $10,000)

To answer this, players now rank the cool stuff they want.  If you want to choose Pershek, you have to rank it high on your list. If you want to be high nobility and a Pershek, you have to choose which is more important to you. There's flexibility built in there too.  Maybe you're a clumsy elf, which is worth a C rank instead of a B rank.

This also keeps the game fresh, imo. That way if you make another Mage for a different campaign, you might choose Human instead of Kefla.