It's a loaded question, I know, but it's the right place to start when thinking about character design. We need to consider what a character is and then build a system to accommodate as much of that as possible.
Here's how I would define it: For the purposes of a fantasy game, a character is a roleplaying persona that is qualified by membership in particular groups (e.g., race and class), statistical attributes (e.g., level and health), and special capabilities (e.g., skills and actions). These qualifiers impact the character's social standing and predispose the character to particular play styles and party roles.
Even the definition is loaded, but it's a start. I'm not suggesting we dump the current race/class/skill/action methodology, but I'd like to take a step back and see if there isn't something we're missing that would really add something. World of Darkness, for example, uses willpower, backgrounds, advantages, and disadvantages. Dungeons & Dragons uses ability scores. Avalon has something called Evo points for racial abilities. And while complexity is generally something to be shunned, it's worth considering whether or not we want to change how characters are defined before we do the job of filling in the details.
So I pose the question to you. What defines an Ornish character?
I agree with Josh about the difference in character and i think that an ornish chracter is not only a seperate individual from every one else in orn its also somewhat a part of the player. i feel that the player dosnt get to personalize him self as much as he/she should. as of right now the chracter is simply the physical rep of the text book deffinition of his or her class and race.
A character is a persona governed by the rules of the game. The race and class combination create the core of a character, which is further fleshed out by the skills chosen by the character. Currently, actions are completely decided by the class chosen. Playstyle and social standing are highly affected by these choices, but personality and background can oftentimes affect playstyle even more. Personality can't really be lumped into a game mechanic, however. A character's strength is generally measured by numeric values (Damage, Healing, Health, Armor, Level).
I'll finish this by noting that I am a fan of complexity. I like lots of choice and lots of variety. I do understand the need for simplicity, however. I would not be opposed to adding more options such as a way to customize your race (I.E. the Evo points or the old bloodlines idea), especially since races seem to define a lot of a character's personality and behavoiral choices in Orn.
I hear you guys loud and clear, Josh and Brooks. Let's call this the "cookie cutter" problem going forward, namely that all members of a particular class are very much the same at the same level. We'll need a fix for this before we finish, but it's definitely worthwhile bringing it up now.
I agree, Nathan; trying to put personality into game terms is like making a rule about roleplaying. You just can't pidgeon-hole something organic like that into a rule system. Although I suppose that sounds hypocritical after the alignment system. :P
I like complexity, too, but it's a slippery slope. As complexity increases, the game becomes unbalanced in favor of those who understand it better, while everyone else falls by the wayside and loses interest. Some is permissible, especially at the expense of other pain, but simplicity is our go-to word.
Lastly, the original design premise was that race isn't as significant as class in the grand scheme of things; you go looking for a fighter or a mage to join your party, not a human or an elf. I'm feeling like that is still true, but I could be convinced to give race a stronger role if you guys care to make that argument.
in the since that i agree that making the race really important is a good idea i also feel that could only be done with the use of sub races and bloodlines wich would make things a little mor complex but i think it would be wroth while. because insted of saying ok we need a angori/fighter it could also say okay we need a vorhex for magic or we need a crazy big distraction such as a dregoth or a scargrim.
The question at this point is how to fix the cookie cutter issue. What I've heard so far sounds better. Allowing the ablity to multiclass easier and making it so it doesn't gimp the player in the long run opens up a bunch of new doors that of mixing and matching classes together.
I like the bloodline for races also opening up a few new door to make characters different.
Please elaborate on bloodlines. Is it more races? I do not feel we need more races or classes.
I can play an interesting dwarf without being a dark dwarf. Or an interesting Angori without being a Vorhex. If you want to be a blue angori just paint yourself blue. Hell Keg could have been red or gray it woudn't have changed the way I play him.
Bloodlines were never meant to be complete races unto themselves. They were only small variations on an existing race. Add a costuming and/or roleplaying requirement in exchange for a small benefit. Gypsies were always my favorite example. They're humans that have to talk with Romanian accents and wear flamboyant clothes. In exchange, maybe they gain access to a curse ability, or have an affinity for being rogues and warlocks.
The point here is that, with a small bit of effort, we can create interesting and flavorful options that allow people to feel more unique and special than they are now. I see nothing wrong with that.
I have to agree with Nick. I don't think that we need any more races or classes when it comes down to the grand schme of things. I think that its going to be a manner of role playing when it comes to sub races. In so far as cookie cutter goes, races seem to be the easiest way to make a character "feel" or "look" different on paper, all that's adding is a minor bit of flavor that has very little to do with ruleset, playability, and choices for variation on what a character is.
A character is the persona based on who or what the character does. Its based on reactions, mindset, and desires as to what shapes how someone is going to reaction to situations. Race should be a MINOR thing in my opinion. If you look at D&D or most other RP systems, races give a bit of flavor, give a few special abilities at best, and lend a hand in fleshing out how a particular character MIGHT deal with situations in the world. A vorehex is a vorehex and a spirehorn is a spirehorn, but despite it all, they're both still Angori. Not to mention with as many races as we have and as little lore as we have for some of them, that's a lot of races to flush out and a lot of bloodlines to worry about with lore, skills, and abilities to define the differences in each. I'm a bigger fan of simplicity of rulesets but suppliemnted by lore as necessary.
the whole idea i had with sub races and racial abilities were say some one create an ixifar and the choose one bloodline/subrace that player starts out with a set amount of racial benifits say 3 and these are random numbers im throwing out. but say he chooses to be a mixed blood line now he has three slots for his racial abilities and can assign two from on bloodline and 1 from another
Bloodlines, maybe. Mixed bloodlines, no. Sorry, Brooks.
It seems we've got two separate camps on the issue, much as we always do when it comes to simplicity versus complexity. I think I'll step back and let you guys fight it out. What do you say? Someone want to throw out a list of pros and cons for each side?
Alrighty, here we go. ;p
I agree with the bloodlines possibility, and I suppose I am biased to it in sorts because I play a Fae. We sort of already pick a bloodline when we start because our "tribes" are included in our race packets. Glimmer, Ripper, and Ariekins are from the Papillio tribe, and Blondie is from the Brownie tribe. She's a genius for that, by the way. Thad, it may help to let them see the Fae Race Packet for a minor example of how a bloodline could be set up. My tribal mound is what gives me the affinity and favoritism of sweets. It's written that without sugar, we go into a sleep like state. This works into the Advantages/Disadvantages gameset. Have any of you played the Serenity RPG on paper? It's a VERY good source for how that system works, and I'd be happy to shar my books. Mark and I play, and I DM it. It goes of Person type/Class/Skills. Then you pick three advantages and 3 Disadvantages with "Character Points."
That being said, I'm obviously a fan of bloodlines and also the Advantages/Disadvantages sets. However, not all players will be. We know that from the get go. But I think adding the fact that you may have an affinity for being a drunkard and that may slow you down sometimes isn't a bad thing. It gives all of our PC's depth. The only Con I see is some players won't like it. I however, do. And that's my two cents so far.
Fairies, Angori, and Ixifar already have bloodlines written into their race packets. I don't think adding a minor behavoir or costume requirement for a slight variation in ability or affinity for a current race is too big of a stretch. Not every race necessarily needs a bloodline, either.
Pros:
3 races already have ~4 bloodlines each written into their race packets.
It adds variety to character choice.
Races won't be restricted to the same 3 choices for classes that they (almost) are now.
Players won't be required to choose a bloodline and can take the "base" race.
Bloodlines would be only minor tweaks (I.E. + a class affinity or + these 2 skill affinities) not entirely new races, and therefore wouldn't take a ton of work to create (except possibly lore)
Cons:
Work done to add the bloodlines system.
Lore is needed (but that's been a problem with just the existing races, but has gotten better).
Variety in RP can be made without the bloodline system (albeit, everyone still plays the same kind of Dwarf and Uordeq and Angori currently).
I like the Serenity advantage/disadvantage system, but that would require heavily regulating roleplaying, and I don't feel it would be suitable. If you want to play a character that gets drunk easily, that's fine, but you can't force it.
If I understand them correctly, Heather, the argument that Nick and Scott are trying to make is that bloodlines are perfectly fine in terms of character background, but should not be included as a separate character attribute. Bloodlines will exist one way or another; what we're trying to decide is whether there should be a system of advantages and disadvantages to having them.
To pull the discussion back a bit, perhaps we're too focused on bloodlines. Perhaps the system we're considering is something more like Traits. These would be things, like a bloodline, that you pick up at character creation and include a balanced package of benefits and detriments. For example, if you're an angori, maybe you can select the Vorhex Bloodline trait, which says that you must wear blue body paint but gain some sort of affinity for the sorcerer class. These would be similar to conditions and have some sort of limit on the number you could choose.
Traits are just an idea, of course; an abstraction on what we're already talking about. I think it has promise, but I'm not married to it. What does everyone else think?
(apparently my tone comes off as angry, I'm not angry, I'm just stating my opinion, and I have a very strong opinion at the moment. xD )
I'm just going to take this back a notch and let you know what I'm seeing every time that I hear someone talk about bloodlines.
When I hear Morzoth talking about the different types of Angori, I'm hearing him say - these tribes are better at these things, and look and act this way, these tribes do something else. I'm hearing Thad say something similair with the gypsies in his description. Guess what guys.. those aren't just bloodlines anymore, those are fully fledged demi-human races at that point. Sure they all share common traits with Humans or Angori because of the general look (minus skin color or accent), but they're fully fledged races at the point that we're giving them their own class affinities and skills.
Listening to Heather talk about the fairy tribes (and I'll add in the Uordeq Clans), I'm getting a completely differnet feeling for bloodlines when it comes to the advantages/disadvantages system. Either way, these are LORE and ROLEPLAY choices and don't really need anything binding in the ruleset. Is there anything saying that Morzoth can't paint himself blue, give himself horns, and call himself a Vorhex now? Does he want to go so far as to take levels in sorcerer because that's what the lore suggets he does? Guess what, he can already do that, and its great because he's creating a unique and special character to add to the world that's grossly different from any other angori.
The best way that I feel that we can accomodate seeing more people going out of their way and doing something like this... drop race/class affinities. Why does most everyone start with a race/class combo with affinity? It's because that bonus action is incredibly useful, especially early on in a characters carreer. Why do melee classes complain so much about how specialty action is broken? Because casters were able to do SO MUCH MORE while spending so few points. Want to see more variation in character and open up the world to be more conducive to unusual race/class combinations that encourage great story? Don't give them more perks, remove the penalty for not making the "optimal" choice!
Actually, what Scott suggested is what I had talked to Debbie (and maybe a couple other people) before. If you remove the class affinities, it helps encourage a bit more variety in class/race selection. However, you still have to contend with the skill affinities as well. The skill affinities with an Angori just do not stack well with the Wizard class, no matter how you look at it. Even without the race/class bonus action, there is still a fairly big disadvantage for choosing that race over a Fairy or an Empyrean.
We could also drop the class affinities and just add small traits or just let a player choose one affinity for themselves (I.E. An Angori could pick a wizard affinity if they wanted, but could not pick any other affinity after that).
Remove racial class affinities - Approved
I was planning on doing that one anyway. Every race/base class combination will be equally optimal at 1st level. I do want to do something to incentivize certain path combinations as characters advance, though. An empyrean, an angori, and a dwarf will all make decent fighters, for instance, but there should be something that makes the empyrean want to be a monk, the angori want to be a savage, and the dwarf want to be a warrior more than the other choices available to them. But we can address that later when we hit classes.
Extending race packets to newbies before their first game is also being addressed. In fact, it was one of the first shots fired in the Newbie Experience group.
As far as skill affinities go, let's address that when we get to skills. I had an idea in my notes, but we're getting a bit far off topic. The real thrust of this thread is to determine what defines a character.
Traits (including bloodline traits) - Approved
On that note, I do feel like class affinities and race packet restrictions are not the only reason we run into the cookie cutter problem. There's something missing from character design that race, class, and simple roleplaying haven't adequately addressed. I'd like to go forward with traits, including but not exclusive to bloodline traits. I think this will add a much-needed element to character customization that will allow one character to differ from another even when they both follow the "optimal" path (which will probably still exist in public perception even if it doesn't in the new system).
On that note, I'll go ahead and call this thread concluded. Excellent debate all. As Scott aptly put, and a point that I still agree on after three years, the most important defining aspect of a character is his or her class, so let's hit that next.
An Ornish character is an avatar into the world that has a whole life of its own. It begins with its race and then progresses into its class.
Its race defines the majority of the chacacters background and has a huge push in the direction of what class the character takes. (ie Dwarfs are more likely to be Warriors, Disciples, or Shamans)
Class is the role the character plays in the game and it is progressed by level the stronger the chacter the higher the level. The classes of orn are made up of actions and skill affinity.
At this point in the game there isn't much difference in between characters of the same class. I feel this needs to change in some way or as the game continues to grow this will start to make to the game boring.