Race creation system reverse engineered and 38 example races in short form

[MENTION=6801453]Coronoides[/MENTION] viewing this on my computer and I'm finding it tough to follow. I'm constantly referring back to previous statements, which would be a bit simpler with a print-out, so I'm going to waste some paper on Monday.

Until then, I'm wondering if you've "tested" other DMs created playable races? I think my personal math works out, but am always looking to tune it a bit.

[MENTION=57494]Xeviat[/MENTION] Yea. Sorry, its just hard to ell on the internet, so I find it best to be defensive. I completely agree, and unless WotC release an official calculator for making races, ones like Coronoides are the best we've got (there was one other on the WotC forums, but I don't think it made the journey. I had a look and it is incomplete AFAIK). I agree that some things don't sit right (especially HP from a race is more than a feat), like I said, this sort of calculator depends on everything WotC being balanced with each other.

@bedir than I find it easier to refer to the excel file and then go to the pdf for clarifications. On the Wizards Community forums, there was several iterations of testing, and me and a couple others were bringing forth inconsistencies and providing examples of our creations. I will actually be bringing everything I put there here as well. My players have tried a couple of the races provided by myself, Coronoides, and one of the others (Ginjiro, if he comes over using that name) and I felt that they were all fairly well balanced. If you post yours here, I'd be happy to check them out (providing the point cost of each trait as you use it makes it easier for us.)

@ X: I did not say 'flat-out' so, so don't put quotes around it. What I did was changed my expectations to match the evidence. Here's the actual quote. It's rather long. Note that WOTC's designers have said they use zero point traits.

"Why lesser traits?
Initially I assumed all traits had a non-zero value. However, as I proceeded with the analysis the points remaining within races for some traits shrank and shrank eventually becoming zero. Increasing the granularity of the system by raising the point value of an ability score to much greater than 2pt might allow very small point values to be assigned to these traits. However, reanalysis would take tens of hours, may still end up with zero point traits, and make the system less user friendly by increasing the additions needed to create a race. Note that setting a limit on the number of lesser traits allowed effectively gives them a (very low) value anyway. Interestingly, as this article was nearing completion WOTC released “Unearthed Arcana: Waterborne Adventures” wherein the designers comfirm they use zero point traits, which they call ‘ribbons’.
Why 6 lesser traits?
The mean number of lesser traits for PHB races is 2 and the lowest number of lesser traits is 1. Drow have the highest number of lesser traits with 5. If you decide you allow Drow to speak Undercommon, as Svirfneblin do, then Drow would have 6.
Darkvision
Many feel Darkvision is too useful to be 0pt. After-all there is a Darkvision spell and spells are worth points. I felt the same way. As I proceeded with the analysis I tried to keep some point cost on Darkvision but then I processed the Half-Elf. This race contains a total of +4 to ability scores (4 x 2 = 8pt) and 2 skills (2 x 2 = 4pt). The prices for skills and ability scores come straight from the Human Variant ‘Rossetta Stone’. 8 + 4 = 12, no points left over for the other traits. Since the other Half Elf traits, Darkvision, Fey Ancestry, and Extra Language, aren’t going to be negative they all must be zero. I guess that WOTC’s designer’s felt that with so many ways to circumvent normal darkness available Darkvision just wasn’t that much of an advantage."

Ok, why do I assume all the races are balanced? Technically I don't but I do assume WOTC does. Why? Well as Zrynx mentioned if I don't I can't use the math to solve anything at all. Secondly, WOTC's press releases consistently reflect the fan's desire for balance and I don't think they would deliberately design some races to be more powerful than others. Did they succeed? We fans can argue that forever.

@Bednir: The system has been critiques and used through around seven threads during the construction, building example races, and beta release phases at RPG.net, WOTC forums, Boardgames geek, and now here. Additionally there has been some live testing at my home.

Then the lack of zero point features in some races make them slightly less desirable than others. I personally don't like humans in this edition, but that's just me.

I wouldn't say that Ribbons are zero point abilities. Ribbons just don't contribute to combat.

Yeh I never liked them in any edition. On the up side we now know you can add a zero point cosmetic feature and probably not break anything.

Do you think it is a good idea if I create a thread dedicated to the races created using this system, so that this one doesn't get flooded with races? That would allow this one to be for questions, debates, discussions, and so on for the system, while the other one would be for sharing and balancing races created by using the system.

I have done that previously but there is so much cross-over between design system discussion and what comes up in race building, as well as the need to point to the design system over and over in the example races thread. I'm not sure its worth it beyond doubling our exposure. I have also on occasion given races that I think will be useful in a lot of campaigns their own one race thread to draw attention to them, e.g. the variant half elf that can make half elves of all the elf sub-races.

Fair enough. My reasoning was so that this thread didn't get cluttered with several conversations about races, and discussions on repricing traits (as I am sure will happen with the release of the SCAG) going on at once. Even a thread where everyone could post their finished races that they wanted to share with everyone, that doesn't involve viewers having to sift through this thread to find them might be an idea, or just scrap this train of thought entirely?

Speaking of the SCAG, once that is released, should I post dropbox links to the versions of this with that analysis, or should I pm/email the prices to you so that you can update the files without having to depend on me?

@ Zynx: I think I'm coming around to your way of thinking re: second thread. Let me think on it some more.

There are a few issues that come up eventually on every thread I have started. Some of these are already in the boxed text of the article. What follows are draft versions of new boxed text for the next (hopefully final) version.

Has this been play-tested?
The system has been critiqued and used during the construction, building example races, and beta release phases through forums at WOTC, RPG.net, RPG Geek, and Enworld. Additionally there has been live testing at my home.

But there is no system!
Some people do not think WOTC has a secret in-house system for me to reverse engineer. There is no way to know for sure without a little industrial espionage. However, I believe that there is a system because WOTC is investing millions based on detailed math created and maintained by a team that is likely to have a shifting membership over several years, WOTC is going to want records to ensure the continuity of future products. Probably information gleaned from practical play concerns etc. are fed back into the evolving document at WOTC. Therefore what I have reverse-engineered is a ‘snapshot’ of that evolving document taken at the time the EEPC was released. My confidence is buoyed by my work predicting that some traits were zero point before the release of Waterborne Unearthed Arcana wherein the designer's confirmed they used zero point traits which they call 'ribbons'. Furthermore the beta version accurately priced most of the EEPC races when that document was released.

Why do you assume that all canon races are of equal value?
I make this assumption for two reasons.
Firstly, because I believe WOTC would intend to design races that are equal at the table. This view is supported by press releases and communications with fans wherein WOTC consistently reflects the fan-base’s obsession with ‘balance’. Now as fans we can argue if they succeeded forever. This issue is compounded because every group plays differently, even if the rules are identical the mix of challenges and how they are presented varies from group to group.
Secondly, the assumption makes it possible to replace most guesswork with math. Using this assumption I remove much of the ‘why’ of judgment, and judgment is really just another word for guessing; guessing what WOTC’s designers were thinking. By making this one assumption I can avoid hundreds of other judgment calls (guesses). Where possible I limit guesswork by using math. If I do not make this assumption the math CANNOT be done and I and reduced to guessing the values of every trait like everyone else and arguing the relative merits of traits qualitatively and endlessly like everyone else.
If I assume that canon races are not worth the same amount of points my project cannot be done at all.

Why did I price this or that trait the way I did?
Your experience and reasoning may lead you to believe that a particular trait is more or less useful in play than my pricing would indicate. The problem is everyone has differing opinions about these relative values. This is why I use math to remove as much of my own judgment as possible then tell you to change anything you don’t agree with.

Coronoides said:

There are a few issues that come up eventually on every thread I have started. Some of these are already in the boxed text of the article. What follows are draft versions of new boxed text for the next (hopefully final) version.

Has this been play-tested?
The system has been critiqued and used during the construction, building example races, and beta release phases through forums at WOTC, RPG.net, RPG Geek, and Enworld. Additionally there has been live testing at my home.

But there is no system!
Some people do not think WOTC has a secret in-house system for me to reverse engineer. There is no way to know for sure without a little industrial espionage. However, I believe that there is a system because WOTC is investing millions based on detailed math created and maintained by a team that is likely to have a shifting membership over several years, WOTC is going to want records to ensure the continuity of future products. Probably information gleaned from practical play concerns etc. are fed back into the evolving document at WOTC. Therefore what I have reverse-engineered is a ‘snapshot’ of that evolving document taken at the time the EEPC was released. My confidence is buoyed by my work predicting that some traits were zero point before the release of Waterborne Unearthed Arcana wherein the designer's confirmed they used zero point traits which they call 'ribbons'. Furthermore the beta version accurately priced most of the EEPC races when that document was released.

Why do you assume that all canon races are of equal value?
I make this assumption for two reasons.
Firstly, because I believe WOTC would intend to design races that are equal at the table. This view is supported by press releases and communications with fans wherein WOTC consistently reflects the fan-base’s obsession with ‘balance’. Now as fans we can argue if they succeeded forever. This issue is compounded because every group plays differently, even if the rules are identical the mix of challenges and how they are presented varies from group to group.
Secondly, the assumption makes it possible to replace most guesswork with math. Using this assumption I remove much of the ‘why’ of judgment, and judgment is really just another word for guessing; guessing what WOTC’s designers were thinking. By making this one assumption I can avoid hundreds of other judgment calls (guesses). Where possible I limit guesswork by using math. If I do not make this assumption the math CANNOT be done and I and reduced to guessing the values of every trait like everyone else and arguing the relative merits of traits qualitatively and endlessly like everyone else.
If I assume that canon races are not worth the same amount of points my project cannot be done at all.

Why did I price this or that trait the way I did?
Your experience and reasoning may lead you to believe that a particular trait is more or less useful in play than my pricing would indicate. The problem is everyone has differing opinions about these relative values. This is why I use math to remove as much of my own judgment as possible then tell you to change anything you don’t agree with.

Click to expand...

Those seem to clearly explain the answer to the issues, and I would be inclined to them in the OP as well, as a FAQ, as that is exactly what they are.

Also, PM me if you decide I should create a "Races created using Coronoides' Race creation system"