PDA

View Full Version : Starting Racial Attribute Differences in RPGs - Do you guys love them or hate them?



Unity
2016-03-17, 12:20 PM
Hey folks,

Just wondering if I could get people’s opinion on starting Racial Attributes/Stats. In most traditional RPGs the race you pick can have a significant impact on the type of character/class you might end up playing. I feel a large part of it might have to do with the initial bonuses or penalties incurred to the major attributes of a character i.e. Strength, Dex, Con, Int etc…

My question is do you *like* having these attribute differences across different races? Do you feel like it’s an important part of the flavour and function of having races in a game? Or do think it’s better off to not have such an impactful difference to allow for more freedom in character creation (i.e. a strongman elf, a graceful dwarf or a charming half-orc etc.) without gimping yourself or feeling like you are missing out by picking the lesser optimized choice?

I’ve been bouncing the ball around a bit with an RPG that I’m currently developing. Feedback from tester groups has been varied but my sample size is too small to see a trend so I wanted to put it out there for a wider audience. In my game there are 4 different races a player can choose from and each has its own rich history, strengths and weaknesses. This is reflected in the starting attributes they receive but also reflected in a variety of unique racial powers they get as they grow in power.

I feel like it could be possible to give the races enough distinction with regards to flavour and function through the tailoring of racial *powers* rather than flat bonuses or penalties to main attributes. Flat bonuses or penalties to major stats have such a constantly powerfully ubiquitous effect across the game as a whole that I can’t help feel if someone wanted say a scholarly or charming Orc, they wouldn’t be able to shake the horrible feeling of deliberately gimping themselves to make that type of character.

Here’s an example of what I mean from my own game Unity. You can see there’s baseline attribute differences but also a sample racial power. Would you as players be ok with ONLY having distinct racial powers and NOT having baseline attribute differences? Or are the attribute bonuses/penalties something that you enjoy?



http://www.unity-rpg.com/images/RacialSmall.jpg (http://www.unity-rpg.com)

Mr. Mask
2016-03-17, 12:38 PM
I've often wondered how to handle outliers in races. The thing with racial bonuses is, if you're playing an ogre but get no strength bonus... well, either strength doesn't feel like strength, or being an ogre doesn't feel like being an ogre. If your'e a dwarf, sickly ogre so your strength bonus isn't noticeable, that'd make you an interesting outlier.

If your races are similar enough, then you mightn't need to have racial stat differences. Some systems don't even need attributes.


I see that in the current version of your system, there aren't racial penalties, only bonuses. This and the similar stature (with exception to the Furian) give the impression that the races wouldn't be expected to be terribly different. Depending, having racial differences might feel forced, depending on how well the stat bonuses correspond to racial differences. Having the really tall guys be stronger certainly fits, having the Valla be taller but weaker and more agile is harder to understand. So long as the lore covers this, it's nothing to worry about, but that's one of the difficulties of game balance and story.


So, personally, I don't mind racial bonuses or no racial bonuses, so long as it makes sense in the context of what I'm playing. If physical strength is measured, I want characters and creatures that would be strong to be mechanically stronger.

Final Hyena
2016-03-17, 12:41 PM
I've always disliked them, every game I've played in every person picks a class and then asks which race gives them a boost in their primary attributes. It shoe horns most races limiting player choice.

This is why I've designed an alternate racial system for 5E where you get points to spend on different abilities. It results in more diverse characters as you get new ability combinations along with the ability to play any race.

Douche
2016-03-17, 12:45 PM
TBH, in most MMOs I've played, I go for the optimal choice. Like in WoW, Night Elves get a 5% to dodge bonus, great for tanking. Guess what race my tank was?

Although those bonuses were largely inconsequential, at least according to other players. You could play whatever you wanted, really.

Meanwhile, in D&D, stat growth and gearing has much more opportunity cost. It's a lot harder to not want to optimize. At the same time, I think that a lot of the most popular combinations make a lot of sense. Like, a wood elf gets a bonus to wisdom and dexterity. Great for rangers! And a wood elf seems a lot like a ranger to me!

In conclusion, I think that most RPGs design their races that it would make sense for them to tend to certain classes, and therefore it seems natural - rather than forcing you into being a certain class/race combo, it sorta just makes sense to me.

Thrudd
2016-03-17, 01:13 PM
I prefer having ability scores be prerequisites for classes and races, both. So instead of choosing stronguy race to get extra strength, you need x strength in order to qualify for stronguy race. Choosing that race gives abilities which may synergize with certain classes, and may confer disadvantages, too. This preserves the identifying feature of the race, like stronguys are strong, but doesn't stop you from being a stronguy wizard. You just need to meet the intelligence requirement for the wizard class in addition to the strength requirement for strongguys. So strongguy wizards will be rarer, as they should be.

Alternatively, use race-as-class, and don't have any ability bonus or prerequisites. Just give each race one or more class options unique to that race. Being a race is unique, now, because they have different professions and abilities from the other races.

Geddy2112
2016-03-17, 01:58 PM
I generally like them, although there is a bit of optimization as others have mentioned that leads to a lot of X being Y. Races with strength bonuses become melee fighters, wisdom bonuses become divine casters, intelligence bonuses become arcane casters, etc. I dislike worlds where all elves are wizards or dex based martials, and there are no dwarf wizards or dex class dwarves, etc.

They do make sense though. A gnome, orc, and human should all have some difference, as they are different species. If there were no racial attributes, then why have races? And while there can be outliers, like a weaker orc or a fragile gnome, racial modifiers on a whole indicate if the species is on average tough, or strong, or smart, or whatever.

Of course, some games and systems function under the assumption that everyone is human or more or less the same race. Even in these systems, there is usually tall, short, strong, weak, fast, slow,smart, stupid, what have you. Some of these are more random e.g. Call of Cthulhu and some are more customization.

Pale Sun
2016-03-17, 02:04 PM
I like the racial differences and despite heavy optimizing all the characters I play, race is something I always pick for flavour.

ImNotTrevor
2016-03-17, 05:12 PM
The outliers in any race are determined by base ability scores.

If your Ogre starts with a base STR of 3, then even after the bonus it won't be more than an 11 or so. Pretty much negated.

Basically, this tells us that an emaciated Ogre is slightly stronger than a normal human. (Just like an emaciated but still mobile elephant is still Way stronger than you.)

I see no problem with them, generally. Obviously the weakest member of a species that is naturally benchpressing large boulders will be about as strong as a pretty dang buff human. Just like how the weakest human is a titanic powerhouse compared to a sparrow.

Measuring each species' outliers by human standards doesn't make sense. Their distributions of abilities will be different. The ability bonuses define the directions and degrees to which those distributions are shifted. There are still outliers. They just don't look like human outliers. Because "Outlier" means something different on their curve.

Yes, they encourage some degree of optimization or whathaveyou, but remember: We're talking about PCs here. PCs are special, unusually great members of their species/culture. So even measuring PCs by the standards of Average Joes is likely a poor plam.

Quertus
2016-03-17, 06:52 PM
I like racial bonuses. It's a really quick way to start to get a feel for races you don't know. It makes the races feel different, distinct. It makes the stereotypes make sense - especially when optimization tends to produce those "X are usually Y" results.

It also makes playing a dwaven mage or a half orc bard feel even more special.

On an unrelated note, I've never been a fan of once per day abilities. They aren't conducive to the mega dungeon meat grinders I grew up with, and rarely make sense from an in-game perspective.

Knaight
2016-03-17, 10:34 PM
If a given RPG has distinct species that are appropriate for PCs, and also has attributes or a close analog, I'd consider this one of the useful tools for distinguishing between them. It's far from the only one, and it's often less interesting than other tools developed for the same task - the Greed, Grief, and Hate tracks in Burning Wheel for Dwarves, Elves, and Orcs respectively make a much bigger difference in play than attributes, and also convey more feel - but it's a useful tool.

Pex
2016-03-17, 11:33 PM
I'm fine with them as long as humans aren't The Suck because of it. In the past alien/demi-human races would get all sorts of nifty abilities, bonuses, and ability score modifiers while humans got bupkis. Humans were the average for which everyone else compares. Step by step humans would soon be getting stuff as new game systems and/or editions developed. Instead of being given specific buffs humans were given bonus game resource slots of Something where the player chooses what the Specific Something is. Being given the Choice was considered strong, so non-humans usually got more stuff in number even though the stuff they got was specific.

The downside to them is whenever people offer advice on specific character types/classes, they encourage certain races for them because they get a bonus to an appropriate ability and discouraged playing other types/classes because there's no bonus or even a penalty. The racial attributes become racial stereotypes. In D&D not all rogues are halflings, but all halflings are rogues. If you're a gnome you're an illusionist or bard. In 5E, if you're a dragonborn you're a paladin or sorcerer, never a wizard or druid. Anecdotal stories may point out exceptions, but they are exceptions that prove the rule.

Xuc Xac
2016-03-18, 12:47 AM
I like different attribute range for races, but I don't like how they are implemented most of the time. Instead of randomly rolling and getting modifiers like +2 Strength/-2 Dexterity, I prefer a set number of points to buy stats with different minimum and maximum values for each stat based on race. So instead of 3d6 Strength +2 for Strongorcs race and -2 for Weakelves, I'd rather see "Strongorcs must have Strength 8 or more" and "Weakelves have a maximum strength of 16".

In my opinion, the real problem is the way classes use those attributes. If every class was dependent on multiple attributes, they could be played in many different ways. I would like to see a system where any race could be any class, but not played the same.

For example, a gnome rogue will use bluffing and illusion to say "look over there!" before running away in a puff of smoke. A human rogue could be the classic ninja burglar. A dwarf rogue would be a master trapsmith who always had the right tool for the job and doesn't need to run fast because he's got a bag of caltrops, glue bombs, and trip wires so nobody wants to chase him. An orc rogue will just throw sand in your eyes then knife you in the kidneys a dozen times before you hit the ground.

Elf wizards have nimble fingers and keen eyes, so they are good at quick somatic components and aiming rays. Other wizards can have their concentration broken and their casting disrupted just by throwing a rock at them, but you can shoot a dwarf wizard with a crossbow bolt to the chest and he'll keep mumbling his incantation without flinching. Human wizards always have multiple backup plans and contingencies and a tendency to improvise, so when other wizards would say "I don't have the right spell for this", a human would grab their spell book, do a quick "back of the envelope" calculation, substitute a drop of mercury for the chunk of sulfur, and adjust their spell on the spot. It might not work exactly right, but it's better than just saying "sorry, I'll prepare the right spell tomorrow". An orc wizard would fearlessly summon dark scary things and intimidate them into service with sheer guts or use some kind of blood magic to increase the potency of their blasting spells at the cost of their own health because their tough enough to take it and macho enough to push the envelope that far.

Most of those concepts are invalidated by rules for classes that say Rogues suck without high Dex and wizards are totally dependent on Intelligence for everything. Basically, I think stats should answer the question "How do you play a wizard?" and not "Can you play a wizard?"

BWR
2016-03-18, 01:20 AM
It really depends. As Mr. Mask pointed out, some races really do need some alterations from the norm to make sense mechanically. In other cases it doesn't make so much sense.
I think the d20 versions of the SW game, as well as D&D, go too far in trying to make all races different. SW has tons of near-human races. They are all human sized and despite looking varying degrees of funny, every single one was given something to mechanically set them apart from humans.
In some cases it makes sense - Wookies should be stronger than your average humanoid. Jawas and Ewoks should be weaker by virtue of being smaller. Twi'leks, Duros, Zeltrons, zabrak, cathar, and more, they all have racial modifiers to their ability scores and I can see no good reason for this.

Magic Myrmidon
2016-03-18, 01:59 AM
I typically don't like them, myself. Almost always makes some class/race combinations unviable. I also feel like unique abilities really communicate a race's feel and assets better than "+2 charisma".

I really like 5e's races minus the stat changes. Pretty much every race has some useful trait that only they can perform. Really gives each combination some good directions to show why each race may be particularly good or suited to a class or profession, without making them worse at the class itself if the ability doesn't quite fit.

Edit: Just read a bit of the unity website. Seems promising. I signed up for the mailing list, looking forward to more news.

Don nadie
2016-03-18, 04:22 AM
I think Xuc Xac is absolutely right.

My problem with races having stats and then class requiring one specific stat is that it encourages the stereotype. If you're playing D&D and don't choose halfling for your rogue, you actually have a disadvantage. Don't get me wrong, I am not an optimizer... But it becomes difficult to be a halfling barbarian and be able to handle the same encounters as a dwarf one.

Now, if every class could reap profit of every stat, then racial stats would be a great thing. It would mean members of one race have a tendency to a certain type of strategies that suit them best, but are by no means constrained to that... And they can be any class they want.

There'd still be space for optimization, but it would be less indispensable. So, all hail Xuc Xac!

LudicSavant
2016-03-18, 04:49 AM
Xuc Xac's on the right track.

One issue with racial modifiers, as implemented in D&D, isn't that they change the range of available ability scores (that's totally fine), it's that they change the prices of having the same ability scores for no good reason. For example, a Half-Orc using point buy spends 20 attribute points on 16 Int/14 Str while a Human spends 16 attribute points on 16 Int/14 Str. It's all of the other stats that are going to suffer for that half-orc. Combined with the particular function of attributes in the game in general, this mostly just serves to make players feel like the game kicked them in the teeth for wanting to play a non-stereotypical class/race combination.

The reasoning used for racial modifiers wouldn't fly for anything else. For instance, you wouldn't say that Batman ought to be a higher level character in a Supers RPG than Superman because he worked harder and required more experience and represents a greater standard deviation from Human than Superman represents from Kryptonian. You wouldn't say that a Sorcerer should gain experience faster than a Wizard because of the class age tables.

Why, then, would you say that a Half-Orc ought to pay more attribute points for the same set of attributes as a Human? Why does the character's "rareness" matter if a character is a specific main character instead of a completely random selection from the general population?

When designing my own races, I try to give them tools for every class. Each has something to offer, just in a different way. D&D-style attribute modifiers, on the other hand, strike me as boring and arbitrarily limiting rather than interesting twists on how to approach any given class.

paddyfool
2016-03-18, 06:22 AM
I strongly agree with Xuc Xac. Some version of racial substitution levels or racially specific feats may also work for this, if they can make a given race's abilities work for a class (e.g. if an Orc or half-orc spellcaster can increase their save DCs based on their Str score somehow).

Milo v3
2016-03-18, 09:03 AM
Without attribute differences it means your races are either going to need a lot of abilities/powers that show the differences between the races (which means your going to have optimal race for different character types anyway) or... there is no point for your game to even have races.

wumpus
2016-03-18, 11:34 AM
Funny. Wasn't this [Xuc Xac's idea] fairly consistent with AD&D, which included (well 1e did, not so sure about 2e) about 20 different ways to roll up a character, not one of which was point buy? I'll also admit it included some modifiers, but I think they were +/-1 and not that game-breaking. I remember long lists of requirements for race/class/(and gender, which has wisely been eliminated from virtually all games since).

Piedmon_Sama
2016-03-18, 11:38 AM
I am mostly indifferent to them but they don't really amount to much. Always struck me as odd everybody harps about how Elves are so graceful and Dwarves are TOUGH AS THE MOUNTAIN and yadda yadda and in actual game stat terms they're only barely moreso than a human on average. But that's a typical fluff/rule separation problem.

Vitruviansquid
2016-03-18, 12:02 PM
Hate 'em.

They are pointless if you're also supposed to allocate points at character creation to get your stats. Not as pointless if you're rolling for attributes, though.

They don't make min/maxing more fun, because they tend to make it obvious which race you would want to be for which playstyle. They do, however, take away options for character creation if you want to strike a balance between power and your aesthetic vision.

I say set up the different races like how DnD 4e does with race specific feats (ignoring the fact that 4e also gives racial attribute differences). Give each race its own options that they can take which is themed toward its racial identity. For example, your Valla race has the motto "Together as One," so give them options geared toward awarding teamwork, like leadership effects, setting an opponent up for another teammate, awarding the party for standing in formation, and so on. They can even combo with the racial unique skills that you already have.

Winter_Wolf
2016-03-18, 12:04 PM
If I don't have mechanical differences between species/races, then why would I ever play anything but the dominant race, which is typically human? Attributes are an easy shorthand, and I tend not to remember racial powers and the like because it's a level of management that I'm not keen on. Unless it's a passive always on kind of thing I'll probably never use it. Because I'll never remember I have that option. Just taking Skyrim for example, the only racial powers I ever use are night vision and always on stuff like resistances or beast race bonus bare hands damage. And that's with the computer handling all the math and such. Tabletop, I'm dropping stuff left and right unless it's all written out and easy to find.

Mordar
2016-03-18, 01:46 PM
Hi all -

I generally like the idea of racial differences that have an impact in the game, but the mechanism of those differences can really vary based on the system.

Some of the questions I think you should consider when deciding on these differences is:

Will the differences significantly hamper or benefit any one race?
Will the differences make one race the only "reasonable" choice for a given class/profession?
Will the differences make certain classes/professions unavailable (or very poor choices) for certain races? If yes, is this intentional?
Do the differences properly model the intended differences between the races (e.g. are sturdydwarves really more sturdy?)
How important to you is the ability for players to play "Pink Ninjas"? (e.g. Brilliant dumbrace, Massive sterotypeelf, that kind of thing)
If you're intent on attribute modifiers as the differences, how important are attributes in your game, and does that importance vary over time?


Here's a bit more on those questions from an outsider who likes to think about this stuff, but is by no means expert. All is obviously prefaced with "IMO".

1) I think this is really about making sure no race is a throw-away or stunningly under-represented. I'm thinking half-orcs here, at least for the majority of their existence in AD&D etc. I don't know if you would want a race that was only played by people deliberately looking for "hard mode" or wanting to be different just to be different, but YMMV.

2) If the game is set up in such a fashion that elf wizards are so much better than all other wizards (and wizards are important), that could easily be a flaw in the system, and almost seems to be evocative of the "race as a class" ideology from early D&D. If that kind of outcome is the intent, ignore the question...but I think as a player I root against r/c combinations that are so much better than any other that it makes every other combination for that class a pink ninja.

3) Do you want every r/c combination to be viable? If so, make sure that the racial differences don't horribly hamper the combinations. That doesn't mean they all have to be viable - if you want a world where dwarves just don't make wizards, that's fine too. Just be sure it is on purpose.

4) Someone earlier in the thread pointed out how little impact racial attribute bonuses have in modern D&D - perhaps because of the nature of adventurers in D&D, human fighters are about the same as dwarf fighters and so on. Maybe the average dwarf is slightly more hardy than the average human, but the benefit on saves/rolls versus things like poison or disease are far more notable than the 5% improvement on d20 rolls based on the attribute. So, consider options like racial bonuses that aren't attribute driven.

5) This is mostly just an opportunity for me to say "I think it is better to not make decisions based on that one guy that wants to play a HUGESTRONG halfling berserker or the sickly wizened troll genius wizard" but YMMV. Some games have authorized r/c combinations...but I think that gets a lot of heat from the populace. Like I said, YMMV.

6) I guess this is pretty close to #4, but it bears repeating. Do you want race to matter throughout the lifespan of the characters/game? If so, consider if attributes will be equally valuable throughout the lifespan of the game. Using 3.x again, consider how quickly the racial attribute differences reduce in impact as levels accrue. Compare that to, say, EarthDawn or Shadowrun where they seem to have a fairly sticky impact. If you want racial differences to continue to matter, but starting attributes fade in importance, consider non-attribute differences.

A final random thought...if you have a small number of races and/or small number of classes...you could always consider specific r/c combination bonuses that reflect the racial take on a given class. They could be numbers based (skill plus, or something like that) or more "power" based (gnome thieves have a "vanish in plain sight" power to reflect their ability with illusion, for instance). Potentially a lot of work and requires that all combinations be balanced within your paradigm, but it could be neat.

- M

Psyren
2016-03-18, 03:19 PM
I like them because they give you a frame of reference. "This race is generally smarter/more magically adept than humans." "This race is dumber but more brutish than humans." "This race is more agile and cunning but worse at thinking things through." "This race is more gregarious and friendly, but less observant and tends to be clumsy." etc. This is especially important when you're dealing with races that are not established tropes, or whose names are not clear descriptors of what they are/do. "Valla" for instance sounds like Valiant, which brings to mind knighthood and forthrightness and things like that, but does that mean they are puissant holy warriors, or does it mean they are wise and agreeable? Or perhaps even both? Without stat numbers (and those of ordinary humans to compare them to), you're throwing out a very easy affordance that new players could use to grasp your game all the more quickly.

As a sidenote OP, your game has awesome art, did you create those?

Blackhawk748
2016-03-18, 03:28 PM
I dont mind them, but humans always being portrayed as Generic McDefault drives me nuts. Humanities biggest asset is Intelligence and our ability to improvise, to me this translates to a Wis or Int bonus. Mix this with humans being a reasonably hardy species (relativistic-ally speaking) and humans being "10 across the board" always seemed wrong. I see average stats as just that, average, as in average amongst all species.

Do note that ive started doing "all positive stats" meaning i drop the Negatives from races and just give them posistives when i make them. This is only for Ability scores, so if it makes sense a race may still have Light Sensitivity or some such.

Morty
2016-03-18, 03:53 PM
I think they're a pretty boring and inefficient way of differentiating races. At the end of the day, a slight decrease or increase in a number doesn't mean that much, unless the attribute in question is the one the character relies on the most, at which point it can lead to certain race/role combinations feeling "suboptimal". So, to answer your question - yes, I far prefer it if races are set apart using distinct, discrete abilities, rather than numerical bonuses and penalties.

Talakeal
2016-03-18, 04:29 PM
I like the concept, but I don't like how most RPGs implement them. Oftentimes there is a "best" race for any given role, and it is very rare to see a character who plays against type, and most of the time they severely punish anyone who defies stereotypes. For example, my last PF character was a dwarf who was the party face, and do to the way point buy works in that game choosing to play a dwarf with a high charisma cost me well over half my total points while for a human it would have been an almost negligible expenditure.


I am also curious about Unity. I looked at the website, but at this point it looks to be pretty bereft of content and more than a bunch of buzz words with no substance behind them at this point. Still, the production values look very high, both on the web site and the game itself and I look forward to seeing more of the system.

Do you mind if I ask about the development process? How many people are working on the game and for how long, and how close to finished is it? It looks incredibly polished for an indy game, and as someone who hopes to publish something similar in the near future I am very curious about the process that went into it.

Jay R
2016-03-18, 05:00 PM
I neither like nor dislike particular rules*. They are simply part of the structure.

[There are exceptions, but they have nothing to do with defining races. I dislike rules that make play impossible, or defy logic. But there's nothing either good or bad about defining half-orcs as stronger than humans.]

In D&D, most illusionists are gnomes. So what? That's how the game works.

It can't help or hurt my character, since it has the same affect on everybody.

Learn the game, play the game, don't complain that it's not a different game.

Unity
2016-03-18, 05:05 PM
Wow guys. Thank you so much for the awesome and insightful responses. This is a great community. I apologize for not being able to respond to everyone’s suggestions and opinions but know that I’ve read each and every single one and it’s all valuable feedback.

I really do like that it’s not clear-cut and there’s a spectrum of appetites regarding this issue. Some of the suggestions have made me take a step back and ask a few more questions that I hadn’t thought of before.

To give a sense of the impact of attribute scores in my game Unity, we use 2D10 as a resolution mechanic so there’s a bit of a bell curve and more consistency than 1D20 but that also means that modifiers like the ones from attribute scores have a variable impact depending on what the TN/DC is. It’s not just a flat +5% bonus across the board.

In combat, the attribute scores have a bigger impact than outside of combat. Classes depend strongly on certain attribute scores which does push certain races to excel at being certain classes. There are classes that use multiple attribute scores and it’s been interesting to balance them so they don’t suffer from MAD issues or feel gimped compared to “pure” classes.

Outside of combat, the starting attribute bonus of a race has a bit less of an impact because of the way the skill and character creation system is handled in Unity. An extra baseline +1 is nice to have but by no means mandatory to play the type of character you envision outside of combat.

I think my struggle will be to find a happy medium between being too impactful and not making enough of a difference to matter. I think if the feedback was overwhelmingly “ugh I hate attribute differences between races” I would probably just remove that from the game but there’s a healthy smattering of folks that like it. The hard part will be finding that sweet spot.
The way I have attribute scores setup right now, you can’t really make a terrible character whatever class or race you decide to smash together but there’s still that feeling of “it could be a bit better had I chosen X race”. I think I’m trying to find out if I’m ok with having that feeling or not. I feel there are equal parts tradition/nostalgia and flavour that are calling me to keep racial attribute differences. In my play test groups, people are still picking the race they like the most over what would create the best of XXXX class, which I’ll take as a good sign.

The wonderful discussion here further confirms some of the musings at my table. As mentioned in the thread Xuc Xac’s post is a real eye opener and also has an approach I hadn’t thought about for ability scores. Mordar’s list of questions too is healthy design food for thought as well among the other scattered questions folks have posed. And I totally hear you guys about Humans being either crappy or too plain jane. I’m trying to find ways to play up their pluckiness, their tenacity to thrive and relentless pursuit to fulfill their potential. In the lore of Unity, their only ‘gift’ was a short life span compared to the races that came before them (who were gifted with speed, power and long lives). But it’s this burning need to carpe diem that has allowed them to be a major contender in the world and punch way above their weight class.

I’ll probably try to rejig a few things incorporating all the feedback here. But please feel free to continue the conversation – it is deeply interesting.

Unity
2016-03-18, 05:16 PM
Edit: Just read a bit of the unity website. Seems promising. I signed up for the mailing list, looking forward to more news.

Thanks for your interest! I just wanted to say that the mailing list is strictly for the Kickstarter launch. I don’t like spamming folks with emails so that list will only be to notify subscribers/interested parties before the launch and on the launch date. Big bonus though is that I’m offering a unique early subscriber bonus to folks who have subscribed to the mailing list (http://eepurl.com/bO8QRj). When the KS goes live and if they like what they see and support it, they’ll receive unique subscriber only monster/NPCs with their own lore, artwork and mechanics. Just a way of saying thanks for your interest while Unity is still a blip on the RPG landscape.

If you want updates on the game, I put out exclusive updates on Unity’s Facebook (https://www.facebook.com/ZensaraStudios/), Google+ (https://plus.google.com/+Unityrpgtabletop/) and Twitter (https://twitter.com/ZensaraStudios). I find that way, I know the folks that follow those pages won’t mind constant updates.




As a sidenote OP, your game has awesome art, did you create those?

Thanks Psyren, I wish I could take credit for that kind of talent but no, I have a pen of artists I work with for the artwork. I don’t think I’ll ever get the game done if I had to illustrate it as well :)




I am also curious about Unity. I looked at the website, but at this point it looks to be pretty bereft of content and more than a bunch of buzz words with no substance behind them at this point. Still, the production values look very high, both on the web site and the game itself and I look forward to seeing more of the system.

Do you mind if I ask about the development process? How many people are working on the game and for how long, and how close to finished is it? It looks incredibly polished for an indy game, and as someone who hopes to publish something similar in the near future I am very curious about the process that went into it.

Definitely Talakael. When I created the website it was more as a teaser than anything then the previews came and it was getting to be a bit heavy to navigate. I’m still not sure how much information is enough or do people really care this point to be inundated with more than just a quick commercial for the game. There is deeper content on the site itself in the BLOG section. I try to give insight into the development process and what I’m doing with regards to vision for design. There is a huge almost 10 page thread on RPG.net's design forums where you can see the evolution of the game over the past few months. Again all this information overload is just for folks that wanted to find out more.

There’s also been an exclusive preview of the game featured on ENWorld HERE (http://www.enworld.org/forum/content.php?3284-UNITY-RPG-The-Best-of-D-D-4E-Pathfinder-Dungeon-World#.Vux81eIrKUk). It gives a preview of combat and talks about what makes Unity exciting.

As to your questions:

1. I’m the main guy behind the game. It’s me and my team of artists. I do everything aside from draw those pictures :)
2. It’s been an on and off project for years. I’ve taken it more seriously in the last year as people started to show a strong interest and getting hyped about it.
3. It’s hard to gauge how close to finished it is. If we look at the writing and the rules, it’s about 70-80% of the way there. But it’s a bit nebulous in this regard because so much of the game is focused on synergy and combos that a LOT of the work goes into the design of the classes and their powers. So they are constantly under iteration but the core engine of the game has been written as has most of the lore. Your comment about the production values/polish is really key to me – I’m a massive stickler for quality so even if everything is “there” the last 30% of the way takes just as long as the first 70% because I want everything nailed down. I definitely need to bring a professional editor on board at some point.
4. As someone who plans on publishing later on, I’ll just let you know to be ready to roll your sleeves up and get in the thick of it all. You’ll have to learn multiple skills to make it work unless you have a lot of money and are able to hire people. The only real cost initially is for artwork unless you have a friend that can draw or you can draw yourself. There’s so much that goes into this that it can be pretty overwhelming at times. Right now I’m learning about marketing and that’s a gargantuan beast to tackle. You’ll learn about web design, graphic design, writing, researching, negotiation skills, contract drafting, logistics, and most of all project management. When you are ready to take the leap, it’s important you commit yourself and a rather large chunk of your time to acquiring the skills above. If you have a more relaxed pace then you can probably getting away learning each of these things piecemeal over time.

Morty
2016-03-18, 05:22 PM
To me, the question is simple - what's going to make the player feel that they're playing someone of a given race? A +1 to an attribute that may or may not actually make it higher than that of another party member (to go with your own game, if we have a Valla scholar, their agility is probably going to be lower than that of a Furian thief anyway)? Or an ability that someone who doesn't belong to a given race won't ever use?

Unity
2016-03-18, 05:41 PM
To me, the question is simple - what's going to make the player feel that they're playing someone of a given race? A +1 to an attribute that may or may not actually make it higher than that of another party member (to go with your own game, if we have a Valla scholar, their agility is probably going to be lower than that of a Furian thief anyway)? Or an ability that someone who doesn't belong to a given race won't ever use?

I think I currently have both of these things going on right now to create that feeling of difference.

The +1 to the attribute will still allow you to have a Valla scholar that's more spry than the usual scholar. The way the attributes are set up in the game, each one is ubiquitously useful even if it isn't the Class' main stat. The Valla scholar, while she might have less Agility than a Furian thief, still most likely has more agility than any other race's scholar making her a more defensive/quick scholar. Whereas if a Furian wanted to be a scholar, they'd probably end being a heartier/beefier scholar but still not on the level of say a Human Dreadnought. The differences seem minute but are still impactful. I just worry if it might be *too* impactful that it turns people off or do they enjoy the subtle flavour like I outlined just now.

The special racial abilities further carve out a niche but they aren't always ubiquitously useful like attribute scores are. Some are powerful used in the right situation and also exemplify the flavour of the race. I'm trying to make racial abilities useful no matter what class a player choose for their character. I feel like with the abilities, it would differentiate the races enough but from the discussion we have going on in this thread, folks still love their attribute scores. I like them too for reasons I can't quite put my finger on but it's just been recent feedback I've received since the game started makings rounds on the internet that pushed me to ask a wider audience and see if there was a trend.

Morty
2016-03-18, 05:50 PM
I'm personally rather dubious as to the capacity of a +1 in an attribute to make it feel like your character is meaningfully better in a secondary field than a character of the same archetype but a different race would be.

goto124
2016-03-19, 02:20 AM
Someone suggested making race affect how characters perform their classes. For example, an elf wizard may be able to cast more powerful spells, but a human wizard could cast a wider variety of spells. One problem I see with this, is that it could easily become a huge mess - every single race/class combination is a class unto itself, as they all have different ways of working mechanically. Reducing the number of races and classes could help, but when it comes to combinations things stack up quickly, so you'll probably have, what, 3 races and 3 classes?

Racial abilities could be fairly light, but it could also run into the same problems that racial attributes have.

Xuc Xac
2016-03-19, 03:14 PM
If I don't have mechanical differences between species/races, then why would I ever play anything but the dominant race, which is typically human?

Essentially, you're saying you don't want to play an elf, you just want a Dex bonus.

Why bother going to a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. restaurant when you can get the same fat, carbs, and protein by drinking a bland nutrient rich slurry from your blender at home?

Xuc Xac
2016-03-19, 03:37 PM
Someone suggested making race affect how characters perform their classes. For example, an elf wizard may be able to cast more powerful spells, but a human wizard could cast a wider variety of spells. One problem I see with this, is that it could easily become a huge mess - every single race/class combination is a class unto itself, as they all have different ways of working mechanically.

You don't have to make the classes different for each race. You just have to give the classes something important to do with each stat. Divide their class features up so that different races with different stat bonuses will focus on different class features, but anyone could use any of them.

Instead of Fighters use Strength for everything, Rogues use Dex for everything, and Wizards use Int for everything, you would give each of them a reason to use their other stats. For example, fighters could use Strength for more damage, Dex for attacking, Con for absorbing blows, Int for setting up tactical bonuses ("he's using Capofera's defense against me, but I studied my Agrippa"), Wis for called shots/spotting an enemy's weaknesses ("he's got a stiff knee and reacts more slowly against attacks from the right side"), and Cha for intimidating lesser foes (so they come in one at a time like Hong Kong action movie thugs and waste their turns by holding back) or getting the attention of more dangerous enemies to keep them from attacking the softer PCs.

As it is, most classes have 1 important stat and 5 dump stats. It would be simpler to just give everyone 1 stat (maybe call it Ability) and then give Strength as a Fighter class feature, and Dexterity as a Rogue class feature, and Intelligence as a Wizard class feature. So instead of "smart characters become wizards, strong ones become fighters" it would just be "wizards are smart and fighters are strong". I prefer a system where Clever Fighters, Nimble Fighters, Perceptive Fighters, Charismatic Fighters, and Tough Fighters are just as valid as Strong Fighters.

Roughishguy86
2016-03-19, 05:25 PM
I honestly do not see the problem with racial modifiers for stats.
Regardless of outliers or wanting too play a differnt kind of character i want my elf too be quicker better looking and more perceptive than a dwarf thats part of being an elf. even an ugly, dimwitted, and slow elf should at least be more attractive than an ugly half orc.
Even irl your ancestry and racial background effects you physically.
My father is half swedish on his mothers side and he is 6'8" and blue eyed which is an indicator of him being a swede.
I see how people would feel punished for playing a half-orc bard say in a point buy system(personally i hate point buy) but in all honestly they should. Because growing up as a weakling Half-orc would be harder regardless of their ability too play musical instruments and sing(like a girly elf). That just makes the differences in the races feel more realistic, Which just helps me personally get into character better.
Just my opinion i'm not trying too argue thats its right and hopefully i don't offend anyone.

LudicSavant
2016-03-19, 05:26 PM
You don't have to make the classes different for each race. You just have to give the classes something important to do with each stat. Divide their class features up so that different races with different stat bonuses will focus on different class features, but anyone could use any of them.

Instead of Fighters use Strength for everything, Rogues use Dex for everything, and Wizards use Int for everything, you would give each of them a reason to use their other stats. For example, fighters could use Strength for more damage, Dex for attacking, Con for absorbing blows, Int for setting up tactical bonuses ("he's using Capofera's defense against me, but I studied my Agrippa"), Wis for called shots/spotting an enemy's weaknesses ("he's got a stiff knee and reacts more slowly against attacks from the right side"), and Cha for intimidating lesser foes (so they come in one at a time like Hong Kong action movie thugs and waste their turns by holding back) or getting the attention of more dangerous enemies to keep them from attacking the softer PCs.

As it is, most classes have 1 important stat and 5 dump stats. It would be simpler to just give everyone 1 stat (maybe call it Ability) and then give Strength as a Fighter class feature, and Dexterity as a Rogue class feature, and Intelligence as a Wizard class feature. So instead of "smart characters become wizards, strong ones become fighters" it would just be "wizards are smart and fighters are strong". I prefer a system where Clever Fighters, Nimble Fighters, Perceptive Fighters, Charismatic Fighters, and Tough Fighters are just as valid as Strong Fighters.

I've been trying to engineer something like this in an RPG system I've been designing. The way it ended up working out in practical terms is that every class still had a main attribute, but all secondary attributes were competitively viable to the point that there was an interesting choice in diversifying your assets, as it were.

So, all Wizards were at least a little Smart and all Fighters were at least a little Strong, but there were meaningful differences between (and advantages for) the Charismatic Strong Fighter and the Nimble Strong Fighter and the Smart Strong Fighter and the Pure Strong Fighter (there were only 4 attributes, not 6). Getting a bonus to any of those four attributes was something you could work with to create an optimal character who played quite differently.

Roughishguy86
2016-03-19, 05:27 PM
Another note i remember in my older books(1st and 2nd ed) there was a chart that told you that certain races could only level so far in certain classes. At least the games not that restrictive anymore.

Broken Twin
2016-03-19, 05:31 PM
Definitely agreeing with a lot of what Xuc Xac is saying. In my opinion, moving classes away from MAD towards SAD as 5E has done was a mistake. Every class should gain moderate usage out of at least a couple of attributes.

In Fantasy Craft, spellcasters derived their power from all of the mental attributes. Intelligence boosts how many spells they know, Wisdom boosts how many spells a day they can cast, and Charisma boosts how power the spells were. Granted, the system is a bit heavier than what I've started moving towards, but I loved how they handled that.

Regarding racial attributes, I like having them, because it sets what the baseline for that race is, and how the other races perceive them. Attribute differences can't be the only factor though. Racial traits and skill bonuses help them feel different from each other.

And in my games, I've started either removing humans as an option, or having humans as the only option (and having the "racial" variants be cultural/regional/social). Having them as a 'baseline' race always felt like it was putting massive undue bias on them that the other races didn't receive. Elves have X variants of mechanical variety to them, but humans "are adaptable" to avoid bringing IRL racial issues into the game. Understandable, but it limits the creative field.


SAD = Single Attribute Dependant
MAD = Multiple Attribute Dependant

Winter_Wolf
2016-03-19, 06:18 PM
Essentially, you're saying you don't want to play an elf, you just want a Dex bonus.

Why bother going to a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. restaurant when you can get the same fat, carbs, and protein by drinking a bland nutrient rich slurry from your blender at home?

Actually what I'm saying is that I can just play a human from a different culture. Why do I need to go to a whole new fantasy race? So I can get pointy ears and a slender body phenotype? Unless someone can make truly nonhuman races, it all ends up "human in funny hat".

And actually I don't care to go out for food because I can make better stuff at home than anything within a reasonable distance of my home. :smallwink:

Anonymouswizard
2016-03-19, 06:39 PM
In terms of racial attribute modifiers, I dislike them and prefer to see boosts to secondary abilities or powers.

Now occasionally stat boosts can be good as a power. In Anima: Beyond Fantasy the Jayan (specifically the Nephilim version) have a power that gives them +1 to Strength and stops them from lowering it. Because they are supposed to be giants it actually feels right, but the bonus doesn't make a human fighter feel useless.

Anima also has my favourite version of elves. Again, I'm specifically talking about the Nepbilim version here. No stat boosts, the Sylvain (light elves) aren't more agile or intelligent than humans, but they are more resilient (but not durable), heal faster, don't need as much food and sleep, are especially resistant to Light effects, and can sense Light and Dark. Duk'zarist (dark elves) are even more resilient, resistant to Dark, heal just as fast, don't die as easily, need even less food and sleep, can sense Light and Dark, have good night vision, perfect bodies, an affinity with pyrokinesis, and an allergy to metal.

The actual non-human bodied versions also get Attribute modifiers, which is just less interesting (oh, and it removes nonmagical elves), but unlike the Jayan their bodies really aren't divergent enough to justify it (especially the Duk'zarist and their +1 to everything 'because they were designed to be perfect'). I just find the Nephilim version of almost every race more appealing because they were focused on powers and secondary boosts over primary attribute boosts. Although these versions aren't really intended as PC options.

Compare D&D 5e where I'm planning to play a half-orc fighter, because it's optimal and will give me 31hp at 3rd level instead of 28.

Milo v3
2016-03-19, 07:35 PM
Essentially, you're saying you don't want to play an elf, you just want a Dex bonus.

Why bother going to a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. restaurant when you can get the same fat, carbs, and protein by drinking a bland nutrient rich slurry from your blender at home?

Except that without mechanical changes, the races are basically just "Look it's Not a Human! ... wait... no it's a human". So the only difference will be if they have different cultures, which can be accomplished by just being a different culture of human. Why bother playing an elf when you can play a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. person?

It isn't "Why bother going to a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. restaurant when you can get the same fat, carbs, and protein by drinking a bland nutrient rich slurry from your blender at home?"

It's "Why bother buying a bland nutrient rich slurry when you can make a bland nutrient rich slurry from your blender at home." or "Why bother going to a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. restaurant when you can get the same exact meal at home with a magic click of the fingers?"

Since without any actual difference between the species, there is no point for them to exist since what you have made is actually just different cultures and are trying to make it "fantasy" when actually you're just wasting peoples time when they read about the "immense" differences between elves and humans in your setting.

Thrudd
2016-03-19, 07:54 PM
That's why I prefer different races actually be different. Different classes, fulfill unique roles in the game. Each race can be/do something (maybe multiple things) nobody else can. Such as, maybe elves have classes that combine magic and martial or thief abilities, no other classes are like that. Maybe gnomes get a tinkering class that lets them build devices. Halfings have classes that combine stealth and hardiness in ways no other classes do.
You don't get bonuses to abilities, abilities are used to determine what you qualify for. Halflings have a minimum dex and con, for example, elves minimum int and dex.

goto124
2016-03-20, 03:15 AM
Essentially, you're saying you don't want to play an elf, you just want a Dex bonus.

Why bother going to a Mexican/Japanese/Italian/etc. restaurant when you can get the same fat, carbs, and protein by drinking a bland nutrient rich slurry from your blender at home?

I find that whatever races I play don't contribute much to the flavor (har har) of my characters, at least in comparison to their goals, ideals, bonds, flaws...

So it's more like cooking up a dish, where race is one of the ingredients. Sometimes race is an essential ingredient without which the dish is completely different or tasteless. Sometimes it's not that important, but adds something extra. Sometimes it's not even that, and if race is a nuisance for other reasons I could go for something generic but easier to handle. E.g. I could try chopping up an entire chicken (fanciful race), but I hate getting splintered bones between my teeth, so I just use chicken breast (bland humans) and add more sauce (the other aspects of my character).

I noticed another problem. Long, complicated differences between races can be off-putting. It's why 'generic' races with simple differences continue to exist - people understand what's going on, and can say "I choose a race of Elf for my archer", or even "I don't know what to choose so I'll go for Human". Paralysing new players when they have to choose a race even before starting the game is not a great way to gain more players.

A system could go by "easy to pick up, hard to master". For example, have a few races with simple attributes (humans, elves, dwarves) for simplicity, but also have more nuanced races for the experiences players that do reward system mastery.

Anonymouswizard
2016-03-20, 05:30 AM
I find that whatever races I play don't contribute much to the flavor (har har) of my characters, at least in comparison to their goals, ideals, bonds, flaws...

So it's more like cooking up a dish, where race is one of the ingredients. Sometimes race is an essential ingredient without which the dish is completely different or tasteless. Sometimes it's not that important, but adds something extra. Sometimes it's not even that, and if race is a nuisance for other reasons I could go for something generic but easier to handle. E.g. I could try chopping up an entire chicken (fanciful race), but I hate getting splintered bones between my teeth, so I just use chicken breast (bland humans) and add more sauce (the other aspects of my character).

Have you ever butchered a chicken? It's easy to avoid splintered bone, raw or cooked, it's just a case of having a sharp knife and being willing to change where you're cutting if you do but none.


I noticed another problem. Long, complicated differences between races can be off-putting. It's why 'generic' races with simple differences continue to exist - people understand what's going on, and can say "I choose a race of Elf for my archer", or even "I don't know what to choose so I'll go for Human". Paralysing new players when they have to choose a race even before starting the game is not a great way to gain more players.

A system could go by "easy to pick up, hard to master". For example, have a few races with simple attributes (humans, elves, dwarves) for simplicity, but also have more nuanced races for the experiences players that do reward system mastery.

First off, why do Attribute differences or lack thereof cause or stop races being simple? I can imagine an elf that's simple and elfy without having +2 Dexterity. Also, if elves are the only race with +2 to the archery stat, then it doesn't matter what cool stuff genies have, the majority of archers will be elves because they are simply better archers. Attribute bonuses should be rare, is there really a need to give elves +2 dex when they already have racial weapon proficiencies, immunity to sleep and charm effects, and the ability to detect secret doors?

goto124
2016-03-20, 06:11 AM
First off, why do Attribute differences or lack thereof cause or stop races being simple?

Apologies, I was thinking of racial differences in general, as opposed to attribute (stat?) differences specifically.

Raimun
2016-03-20, 06:47 AM
Because we are talking about different species, it makes a lot of sense that each one has their own ability score bonuses and minuses. Orcs are stronger than halflings, elves have more dexterity than dwarves and so on.

But if you don't have ability score modifiers, "usable once per day"-powers just don't cut it. That way, you can only see the difference between a half-ogre and a gnome once a day for six seconds. That's... kind of an inorganic solution, if you ask me. If you don't modify ability scores themselves, you should still give the races (species, actually) significant static bonuses to their capabilities. Dwarves are tougher than most 24/7, not the combined total of 42 seconds every week.

One partial solution I like from Pathfinder is that some creatures (humans and half-orcs) get to choose into which stat they put that +2. This makes sense because humans have always been described as the most diverse creatures in D&D. Obviously, this model doesn't suit all creatures, unless they are described as diverse as well. D&D dwarves, for example don't strike to me as people who have a floating +2 to a stat.

Anonymouswizard
2016-03-20, 06:50 AM
Apologies, I was thinking of racial differences in general, as opposed to attribute (stat?) differences specifically.

Ah, okay, serves me right for reading most of this thread late at night. I agree with you then, except that the complex races should never be better.

For example, let's say that you have an angel race that has double Qi regeneration, can fly and enter a state where they take half damage for one minute, but must wait 24 hours between uses. Nice and simple, and barely requires any bookkeeping.

Then we have a demon race, with resistance to any one damage type that they can change with a move action, the ability to read thoughts (Charisma) times a day, and can draw Qi from enemies with a strike. Still fairly simple, but more complex.

Finally we have a genie race. This race knows an extra 3 first level spells of a single element, has resistance to damage from that element, and can turn into that element for 10 minutes a day.

Which is better, assuming a D&D style game?

For the record, this question is why my game doesn't have alien races started up yet, and when I get around to it I'll be attempting to avoid humanoids.

Morty
2016-03-20, 07:56 AM
Because we are talking about different species, it makes a lot of sense that each one has their own ability score bonuses and minuses. Orcs are stronger than halflings, elves have more dexterity than dwarves and so on.

But if you don't have ability score modifiers, "usable once per day"-powers just don't cut it. That way, you can only see the difference between a half-ogre and a gnome once a day for six seconds. That's... kind of an inorganic solution, if you ask me. If you don't modify ability scores themselves, you should still give the races (species, actually) significant static bonuses to their capabilities. Dwarves are tougher than most 24/7, not the combined total of 42 seconds every week.

One partial solution I like from Pathfinder is that some creatures (humans and half-orcs) get to choose into which stat they put that +2. This makes sense because humans have always been described as the most diverse creatures in D&D. Obviously, this model doesn't suit all creatures, unless they are described as diverse as well. D&D dwarves, for example don't strike to me as people who have a floating +2 to a stat.

From the point of view of a player, an ability that they actively use, even if it's one a day, is far more significant than a +1 here or there. Instead of a slight change in numbers, they get to approach a situation in a way a different race simply can't.

Of course, it's very dishonest to assume those abilities are usable once per day. Why should they be, as opposed to being usable once per scene, passive, or something entirely different?

Knaight
2016-03-20, 04:24 PM
From the point of view of a player, an ability that they actively use, even if it's one a day, is far more significant than a +1 here or there. Instead of a slight change in numbers, they get to approach a situation in a way a different race simply can't.

Of course, it's very dishonest to assume those abilities are usable once per day. Why should they be, as opposed to being usable once per scene, passive, or something entirely different?

To use a 4e example (in support of this), the Eladrin racial ability is a short range teleport, usable every encounter (or every five minutes). That feels distinct, it makes them play differently regardless of the specifics of what class is attached, and it also has broad ranging cultural implications from a setting design perspective. A +2 to dexterity, not so much.

With that said, it's not just active uses that make things feel different. Attribute bonuses or similar can do it if the system is designed for that, immunities and susceptibilities can do so, etc. These can even effectively create abilities that they can actively use, even if they aren't listed. To use another D&D example, Warforged don't need to breath. It's a straightforward immunity, but it's a straightforward immunity that gives them a lot of room to move through water with no issue, along with occasional niche uses elsewhere (extreme altitude, poison clouds, vacuum). A sufficiently high strength boost gives you the ability to lift very heavy things that otherwise just couldn't be lifted, so on and so forth.

Where the D&D design space doesn't give a whole lot of good examples is in vulnerabilities or limitations that create a sense of species-identity. Still there are good examples elsewhere, such as fiction. The fictional Thranx are insectoid and breathe through their torsos, so even relatively shallow water is likely to be a death sentence, and the sort of deep but still water that humans can easily swim through given minimal training is a terrifying environmental hazard. Something like a small ice golem which might be a playable species in an arctic fantasy campaign is in a great deal of danger if exposed to temperatures that are cold but above freezing, let alone actual hot climates. If you're playing an antropomorphic fantasy game about lizard-people where the base species is a gecko-person, then something like an iguana-person is going to be defined partially by how they're bigger and tougher, but also largely by their weakness of not being able to scale sheer surfaces near effortlessly like a normal person.