[Notebook] Building New Races

[Morgenstern]

I spent some time going over all the published species as fixed data points and tightening up a new batch of formulas to evaluate sets of attribute modifiers in terms of design points for creating Species and Talents. This is not the exact method I've used in the past, this verson being I feel a bit more robust in the way it analyzes benefits.

The list presents a range of default combinations. There are three modifers you can use to mix things up:

1) At no extra cost you can substitute a "choice of 2 attributes" for a single "Specific N", though this should be used with restraint. Basically it doesn't tip the scales enough to cause a shift. Drakes are a published example of using this option.

2) For an additional +.5 you can modify any specific attributes (one, some, or all) to instead grant choice of any, or a list of 3, 4 or 5 attributes. I have included several very common examples in the following list. Centaurs take advantage of the "list" for their bonus (offering a list of 3 choices), while Saurians have a choice of any attribute.

3) You may reduce the cost of a package by -0.5 by specifying that the penalty must be applied to the largest attribute that does not receive a bonus. Again, Centaurs are an example of this.

Hope this helps!

Attribute Design Point Costs
-1.0 Points:
   –2 (Specific A)
0 Points:
   +2 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie), then –2 to highest attribute (your choice if there is a tie)
    No Modifier
   +2 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B)
   +2 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C)
.5 Points:
   +2 (Any), –4 (Specific A)
   +1 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B)
   +2 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B), –2 (Specific C)
   +2 (Specific A), –2 to highest attribute other than (Specific A)
   +1 (Specific A), +1 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C)
1.0 Points:
   +1 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie)
   +1 (Specific A)
   +2 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B)
   +3 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B), –3 (Specific C)
1.5 Points:
   +1 (Any)
   +2 (Any), –2 (Any)
   +1 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie), then +1 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie)
   +2 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B)
   +4 (Specific A), –6 (Specific B)
   +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –4 (Specific C)
2.0 Points:
   +1 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie), then +1 to highest attribute (your choice if there is a tie)
   +2 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B)
   +1 (Specific A), +1 (Specific B)
   +4 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –2 (Specific D)
   +3 (Specific A), –3 (Specific B)
   +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –2 (Specific D)
   +3 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B), –1 (Specific C)
2.5 Points:
   +2 (Specific A)
   +6 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B), –4 (Specific C), –4 (Specific D)
   +3 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B)
   +4 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B)
3.0 Points:
   +3 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B)
   +4 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C)
   +4 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B), –2 (Specific C)
   +3 (Specific A), –1 (Specific B)
   +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C)
3.5 Points:
   +2 (Any), +2 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B)
   +3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –3 (Specific C), –3 (Specific D)
   +4 (Specific A), –2 (Specific B)
   +5 (Specific A), –5 (Specific B)
4.0 Points:
   +3 (Specific A)
   +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B)
   +4 to lower of (Pair A) or (Pair B)
   +4 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –2 (Specific D)
   +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), +2(Specific C), –2 (Specific D)
   +3 (Specific A), +3 (Specific B), –3 (Specific C)

[Doublebond]

+1 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie), then +1 to lowest attribute (your choice if there is a tie)

Is this a typo? The mechanics seem fine to me (you add 1 to the lowest att., and then add 1 to the then-new lowest att., IIUC), but the phrasing makes it seem unintended to me.

[Morgenstern]

You understand correctly. All of the multi-element 'bonus to lowest' benefit from having an order of operations (hence the "then"). This make it more clear what to do with an attribute spread than has 8 and 10 as the low values (apply both bonuses to the 8 ) vs. low scores of 10 and 10 (apply one to each - NOT add 2 to one of your choice).

Having an order of operations is particularly important in the 0 design point "+2 lowest/-2 highest": it prevents a case where having an attribute spread of all 13s turns that in to the 1.5 design point "+2 any/-2 any".

[Sletchman]

Is this Mastercraft or Spycraft? [or both?]

I never realised how much some races pay for their stats [especially Pech[!] and Orc].  Interesting.

[Brakk]

2.0 Points:
 
   +2 (Specific A), +2 (Specific B), –2 (Specific C), –2 (Specific D)
   

I was converting some ADnD races the other day and this situation came up. I also calculated it as a 2.0 bonus.
Anyway, is this going to the wiki?

[Mister Andersen]

You could always add it yourself

[Doublebond]

Someone's gotta do it, and I shouldn't be me lest you want I should ruin the formatting of the article.

[Brakk]

I will update it but what should I do with those old rules - merge them?

For example, there's a 0 point (-2 Any, -4 Specific) which isn't available in the new guidelines.

http://www.crafty-games.com/node/873

[Krensky]

Huh?

That's in Morg's new list...

[Brakk]

Sorry, I this is what I meant

New List

0 Points:
  +2 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B)

Old List

0 Points:
+2 Any, -4 Specific

[Morgenstern]

Is this Mastercraft or Spycraft? [or both?]

Distinctly Mastercraft. If I could edit the wiki (my browser can't see the edit screen), I would link this info to the Mastercraft page rather than the FantasyCraft page.

I never realised how much some races pay for their stats [especially Pech[!] and Orc].  Interesting.

The orc is acually getting off a little easier than I'd like. The scale distorts slightly at the very top and bottom, but I treated the published entries as fixed points and bent the scale to match. I'm gonna try to make a few more packages in that range and see if they drive me nuts or make me more comfortable allowing them.

I'm up for trying out the tools on some other combinations if folks have some they see a use for.

(I also updated the list to specifically include the package used by the Unborn)

[Krensky]

Sorry, I this is what I meant

New List

0 Points:
  +2 (Specific A), –4 (Specific B)

Old List

0 Points:
+2 Any, -4 Specific

It's there under .5.

[Morgenstern]

I just added it in response to the question . You could achieve it by using the bump rules, but It was worth pointing out specifically since there is a published example.

[Mister Andersen]

Tangentially related:

How much is it worth for a species to partially or entirely breathe something other than oxygen, and how is that value affected by the primary action of an adventure featuring significant numbers of oxygen breathers taking place on that particular world?

[Morgenstern]

My very first thought is to NOT make that a +/- in the Origin system and instead make a general case rule for sustained opperation in a hostile environment some sort of extra XP modifier so that it's equally applicable to Earth-breathers having a mission where they have to run around in masks the whole time on planet Glortox as it is to Alien-breathers in a human-centric environment. Probably small and awarded on a scene-by-scene basis.

The whole thing coming down to "you have some extra risk of someone pulling off or damaging your mask" with the specifics of that risk being related to how common replacment masks are and how incompatible the environments are (immediate drowning rules vs. 1 minute of increasing unpleasantness vs. 20 minutes of nause before colapse). At the Farthest Star tech-level, I 'd expect support sytems to be very rugged and probably having at least one level of redundancy. Hard vacuum is pretty unforgiving to humans, so they regularly travel with low-hassels suits on and emergency shelters close at hand. Similar courtesy could be extended to visiting xenos in many cases.

Critters with extremely demanding life-suport needs might count as a drawback in Origin terms... maybe. I'm probably just used to tech overcomming this to a degree where its a nusance and texure item rather than regularly exploited plot element. Dolphins in land-capable power armor for example.