Menu
News
All News
Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
Pathfinder
Starfinder
Warhammer
2d20 System
Year Zero Engine
Industry News
Reviews
Dragon Reflections
White Dwarf Reflections
Columns
Weekly Digests
Weekly News Digest
Freebies, Sales & Bundles
RPG Print News
RPG Crowdfunding News
Game Content
ENterplanetary DimENsions
Mythological Figures
Opinion
Worlds of Design
Peregrine's Nest
RPG Evolution
Other Columns
From the Freelancing Frontline
Monster ENcyclopedia
WotC/TSR Alumni Look Back
4 Hours w/RSD (Ryan Dancey)
The Road to 3E (Jonathan Tweet)
Greenwood's Realms (Ed Greenwood)
Drawmij's TSR (Jim Ward)
Community
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Resources
Wiki
Pages
Latest activity
Media
New media
New comments
Search media
Downloads
Latest reviews
Search resources
EN Publishing
Store
EN5ider
Adventures in ZEITGEIST
Awfully Cheerful Engine
What's OLD is NEW
Judge Dredd & The Worlds Of 2000AD
War of the Burning Sky
Level Up: Advanced 5E
Events & Releases
Upcoming Events
Private Events
Featured Events
Socials!
EN Publishing
Twitter
BlueSky
Facebook
Instagram
EN World
BlueSky
YouTube
Facebook
Twitter
Twitch
Podcast
Features
Top 5 RPGs Compiled Charts 2004-Present
Adventure Game Industry Market Research Summary (RPGs) V1.0
Ryan Dancey: Acquiring TSR
Q&A With Gary Gygax
D&D Rules FAQs
TSR, WotC, & Paizo: A Comparative History
D&D Pronunciation Guide
Million Dollar TTRPG Kickstarters
Tabletop RPG Podcast Hall of Fame
Eric Noah's Unofficial D&D 3rd Edition News
D&D in the Mainstream
D&D & RPG History
About Morrus
Log in
Register
What's new
Search
Search
Search titles only
By:
Forums & Topics
Forum List
Latest Posts
Forum list
*Dungeons & Dragons
Level Up: Advanced 5th Edition
D&D Older Editions
*TTRPGs General
*Pathfinder & Starfinder
EN Publishing
*Geek Talk & Media
Search forums
Chat/Discord
Menu
Log in
Register
Install the app
Install
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Race creation system reverse engineered and 38 example races in short form
JavaScript is disabled. For a better experience, please enable JavaScript in your browser before proceeding.
You are using an out of date browser. It may not display this or other websites correctly.
You should upgrade or use an
alternative browser
.
Reply to thread
Message
<blockquote data-quote="Coronoides" data-source="post: 6735227" data-attributes="member: 6801453"><p>@ Zynx: I think I'm coming around to your way of thinking re: second thread. Let me think on it some more.</p><p></p><p> 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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Has this been play-tested?</strong></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>But there is no system!</strong></p><p>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.</p><p></p><p><strong>Why do you assume that all canon races are of equal value?</strong></p><p>I make this assumption for two reasons. </p><p>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.</p><p>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.</p><p>If I assume that canon races are not worth the same amount of points my project cannot be done at all.</p><p></p><p><strong>Why did I price this or that trait the way I did?</strong></p><p>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.</p></blockquote><p></p>
[QUOTE="Coronoides, post: 6735227, member: 6801453"] @ 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. [B]Has this been play-tested?[/B] 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. [B]But there is no system![/B] 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. [B]Why do you assume that all canon races are of equal value?[/B] 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. [B]Why did I price this or that trait the way I did?[/B] 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. [/QUOTE]
Insert quotes…
Verification
Post reply
Community
General Tabletop Discussion
*Dungeons & Dragons
Race creation system reverse engineered and 38 example races in short form
Top