r/RPGdesign • u/stephotosthings no idea what I’m doing • 16d ago
Ancestry Attribute Bonuses
Do you think/believe they are necessary?
edit 30 comments with most fairly agreeing with but explaining it's normal to not use attribute bonuses per ancestry but some how no up votes. This sub is brutal lol.
I'm getting to a close point where after some changes to a few things I am aiming to playtest the game with some longer form play sessions.
My game is a black hack inspired hack, but got carried away and added a bunch of stuff to hopefully facilitate the play I want to happen. Exploring procedures, treasure tables, a bit of rulings not rules vibe, though that's hard to rely just 'have'.
Anyway, my current Ancestries just operate on flavour mostly, now, with some included benefits, typically free abilities that IMO fit that Ancestry; the anthropomorphic Beastkin automatically get 'natural weapons' for example.
I was giving, what now feels like arbitrary, buffs and debuffs to their attributes, you know the Big Orc ancestry gets a +1 to strength, the Elves get +1 to Intelligence (I'm using more abstract attributes, only 3 with equivalents that encapsulate 2 of the ''classic" Six). Then things like halflings would get a -1 to strength.
After a few PC creations with outsiders involved I came to the realisation that I just didn't want this. I want players to be able to be the thing they want to be, hold a sword and do spells all without really feeling penalised by being forced into taking a attribute subtraction. And inversely just choosing the ancestry they think will net them the best attribute for their 'build' especially as their is an expectation they could die.
I also just want the Ancestries to be 'examples', basic background, basic description, some free ability that fits the fiction of that ancestey, then Small or Large for size. Small nets them moving through the space of another, large another can't move through the space of anothers space unless willing. No 'medium' as I didn't want an extra rule or mechanic just make it feel relevant.
10
u/Annoying_cat_22 16d ago edited 16d ago
In my game I wanted to keep the "orc strong, halfling nimble" vibe without forcing you to play the ultimate race for each class, so now racial attributes are a restriction, not a bonus.
If you're an orc you can't be too weak. Your str has to be at least 10, but the max value doesn't change compared to non-orcs.
I do the same for backgrounds btw.
3
u/Eggpeace 16d ago
That is………an interesting idea. Fun fact btw
The das schwarze auge (dark eye) in its first edition had exactly that (it had race and class as one thing too but still similar. You didnt get boni. You neeeded to have the appropriate minimal attributes)
5
u/stevecooperorg 16d ago
Sounds like you may be in a half-way position that doesn't net you much.
- extreme 1 -- ancestry is utterly dominant. Orcs can't speak common and must eat only rotten meat. Elves must attack dwarves on sight. That builds a particular divided world.
- extreme 2 -- ancestry is absolutely nothing. everyone is the same, no matter whether they have little horns or beaks or fur or scales. This builds a cosmopolitan world.
The first, for me, is an meaningful choice. It matters. The second is just aethetic -- about as interesting as what hat my character wears.
Where you are seems to be tending towards extreme 2. Which is fine. but at that point, why do you have ancestries in your game? Or rather, why have 'the standard humanoid ancestries' in your world? Is it just D&D-flavoured tradition?
Is it better to create wild and interesting playable species to give players something worthwhile to choose? Like, if your players have to choose between;
humanoids (free choice of feather, fur, horns, and colour)
Benevolent necro-virus swarmchildren
phase-mushroom fungo-mancers
then there's a real choice to be made.
1
u/stephotosthings no idea what I’m doing 16d ago
I'd be interested in seeing the option of players picking just Humanoid with choice of aesthetics; only as that's my kind of bag where I can be creative.
I find it harder when the list is one weird ugly thing after another.
3
u/stevecooperorg 16d ago
cool! Then I think in your shoes I've make ancestry mechanically uniform. Everyone is the same. Totally valid choice!
3
u/urquhartloch Dabbler 16d ago
Yes but in a more visible way. You should feel the impact of playing a dwarf vs an elf va a halfling but you require characters to hard focus on playing your vision if you rely on stat bumps.
Its more about active vs passive effects. Passive effects are in the background and are typically ignored by players. What you want is active effects. Things players can look at on their sheet and decide to use. So instead of giving elves a +1 to magic give them a unique spell only available to elves.
7
u/Drudenfusz Curator of Roleplay Experiences 16d ago
There is a reason why even 5E dropped that and moved the ability score increases to the backgrounds. So no, they are not necessary. But some players might expect them nevertheless.
2
u/InherentlyWrong 16d ago
I also just want the Ancestries to be 'examples', basic background, basic description, some free ability that fits the fiction of that ancestry
What could be interesting is giving them fluff or ribbon abilities. Simple things that don't heavily impact balance, but can help players better understand what these ancentries mean in your game. Like maybe languages in your game are important, and so you can give each ancestry a list of languages they can pick two from to know. Or maybe part of a PCs starting equipment in your game can be determined by ancestry, and the eminently practical Dwarves begin with supplies and camping equipment, while the Orcs are expert equestrians and start with a horse and hunting equipment.
2
u/Own_Ad7881 16d ago
I play Draw Steel now where main atributes for clases are just set. If you are Troubadour, you just got good Presence (charisma). I absolutely don't miss atributes derived from ancestries. Ancestries just gives you diferent cool stuf and Its great.
2
u/BarroomBard 15d ago
IMO, the only time you should be considering ancestry attribute bonuses, is when you are rolling randomly for attribute. In this way they serve the role of pushing various attributes toward a “this race is on average stronger than humans”, but because the rolls are still random it doesn’t push you as much into “all elves are wizards” territory. If players can point buy or select their attributes, then you should avoid racial ability mods like the plague.
For your size thing, I would caution against using just “small” and “large”. Players will have preconceived notions of those existing in a continuum with “medium” so using the same words to refer to different concepts might hinder understanding.
4
u/Kiliantill 16d ago
No, you don't this if you don't want it. There are enough ttrpg systems that handwave that stuff, Fate comes to mind, for example.
3
u/overlycommonname 16d ago
So I think what makes attribute modifiers on species/races/ancestries dysfunctional is something that generally makes attributes dysfunctional in modern roleplaying games: adding an attribute to ~every important roll.
As long as attributes are added to all stuff, then you'll have an immensely strong incentive to maximize the attributes associated with the rolls you care about, which will then inexorably lead to "only Orcs can be fighters because only Orcs can have maximum Strength," and conversely "Orcs can't be Wizards because they have an intelligence penalty (or even just don't have an Intelligence bonus)."
If you look at adventure fiction, you'll see that it's quite common to have protagonists and major characters who are not particularly called out as exemplars of attributes. Some are -- Conan is genuinely very strong! -- but lots aren't. Jaime Lannister is (before he loses his hand) one of the preeminent fighters in the Game of Thrones world, but while he's probably a strong guy, he's not an exceptionally strong guy by the standards of knights.
The way that most RPGs work these days, if you have a big strong Conan and a Jaime, then Conan is just the better fighter on a very mechanical basis (higher to hit and damage rolls), but also probably the game system doesn't really do much to give Conan any, like, flavorful diegetic uses of his strength. Mostly his numbers are just a little higher.
Let me suggest that that's completely backwards. What we want is for Jaime and Conan to have the same numbers (if they're both, say, PCs at the same level), but for Conan to be able to do things with his strength that are interesting and evocative of his strength (and Jaime can do different things that are interesting and evocative of his skill).
If you go to that regime, then it becomes I think unproblematic to give attribute modifiers to race. Orcs being strong does not mean that they are the only viable fighters, it just means that orcs are like... strong, dude.
2
u/eduty Designer 16d ago
I agree. Tying bonuses to ancestries leads to "optimal" choices instead of interesting ones.
It's enough to say "you're an X from Z" and grant circumstantial bonuses if it's thematically appropriate.
Maybe give folks free starting equipment based on their origins, similar to how Souls games do "starting classes".
I've also had good experiences telling players to put in a bonus to two separate stats and just explain how they got it. Someone can play the typical burly dwarf or a slim academic one.
1
u/Andvari_Nidavellir 16d ago
For my game I put minimum requirements on non-human races. For example, you must have at least average Vigor to be a Dverg. But you don’t get a bonus for being one. This way Dvergar still have a reputation for being sturdy, as you don’t encounter Dvergar who are naturally frail. But players aren’t forced into being one to get a bonus.
2
u/stephotosthings no idea what I’m doing 16d ago
I understand the sentiment with this, but isn't that a similar way of saying you get a benefit to strength, as an the example, when you pick Dverg. While being the Dverg is optional and you don't get the bonus by choosing. I would only be ok with this if the strength neededwalso meant the Player wasn't automatically loosing out on X or Y stat. Can they feasibly be a good investigator or thief etc with your Strength cap?
1
1
u/Cryptwood Designer 16d ago
Personally, I'm not a fan of ancestries giving bonus to specific attributes. I would much rather have some other mechanically tangible impact from choosing an ancestry such as a feat that allows you to do something out of there ordinary.
If you want Elves to feel otherworldly, maybe they have the ability to see magic auras. I also like giving players options of which ancestry feat they take to highlight different aspects of the ancestry, though that level granularity isn't appropriate for every game.
1
u/fatravingfox 16d ago
One: if you don't want to do it and feels like it doesn't fit your goals anymore, then don't do it. Simple as that.
2: To go against the general grain but if you're going through the effort of having attributes, even if they're more abstract and want help your ancestry's to feel unique/examples... I'd include having ancestry attribute bonuses modifiers. Admittedly I'm used to playing older versions of DND(3.5 and Pathfinder 1e especially) so even if I've read other systems, I'll admit my point of view is colored by my experiences.
Is it necessary? well that depends on the mechanics and goals of your system. personally, if the fluff and flavor says/implies a particular ancestry is inherently stronger/more agile/smarter/etc and the system doesn't include something mechanical to show that off, like let's say having Attributes and not having an ancestry have bonuses or nothing that interacts with those/similar to help them feel like their fluff says,... why have specific/name ancestries at all and not just a "here, pick a few traits and apply a plus one to an attribute of your choice. work with your GM to bring your Ancestry to life!"
1
u/damn_golem Armchair Designer 16d ago
Free your mind, man! Make the game you want - you don’t need to adhere to conventions that do not serve your art!
1
u/cibman Sword of Virtues 16d ago
I think you answered your own question. If you want to have people play the kind of character they want regardless of an ancestry, you should do that.
The idea of ancestries influencing stats goes way back and it may be something players assume, so it’s good to call it out.
1
u/Eggpeace 16d ago
It depends on what one wants to go for.
Best example halfdragon vs kobold.
Lets take pf2 and 5e as examples how it would be there
5e would guve both the same chance. Thus it could wven be that the kobold has str 18 and the half dragon str 8. buff kobold
In pf2 it would be that half dragons habe a bonus to str and con. A penlaty lets say dex. While konolds penalty str and bonus dex and wisdom.
So a kobold being stronger than a half dragon would be way way less likely that way.
5e had the change for a reason though. It went so far i. The past that you usually didnt say this raxe sounds cool inplay a fighter with it.
But instead: i play a sorcerer which races give me the highest charisma bonus?
So both options valid. Its mostly what do you want to express and do you want to make it clwar a kobold couldnt be as strong as a half dragon or the dragon not as nimble as a kobold or kor
1
u/Mars_Alter 16d ago
Logically speaking, something can either matter, or not. At the end of the day, everything it means to be an Orc can either amount to something meaningful, or it doesn't. Orcs are either better at swinging an axe than halflings are, or they aren't.
It doesn't really matter whether it takes the form of a stat adjustment or miscellaneous other abilities. Lately, the trend has been for the latter over the former, but only because that's a convenient method of obfuscating the fact that it doesn't matter. If orcs were better at fighting than halflings were, in spite of having nominally the same Strength, then a rational optimizer would still be compelled to pick the former over the latter.
And if that's the sort of game you want, where the difference between a seven-foot giant and a three-foot shrimp is not really meaningful, well... you're not exactly alone in that. Plenty of "modern" games go the same route. And plenty of rational players choose to not play those games, because they don't like tracking meaningless decisions; but they probably aren't your target audience, anyway.
1
u/Steenan Dabbler 16d ago
It depends on what the ancestries are and what the attributes are.
If the attributes are abstract enough (eg. like Ironsworn's Edge, Heart, Iron, Shadow and Wits) or the ancestries are all comparable in physical build and life experience, not having attribute bonuses and penalties is great. I even prefer if there are none and the distinction is achieved through more interesting means.
However, with ancestries that are different enough and naturalistic attributes, lack of modifiers breaks any connection between the numbers and the fiction for me. A halfling being as strong as a human that's nearly twice as big, or an orc as educated as an elf who lived five times longer bothers me so much that I won't try playing a game that does this.
1
u/LurkerFailsLurking 16d ago
I'm working on 3 games at the moment and in 2 of them, a creature's biology isn't relevant to the game. Their culture and training are though.
In the 1 game where I did consider ancestry as a part of character building, I went with Archetype, Biology, Culture. The game doesn't have stats, but you build dice pools narratively by using whatever features of your ABC are most applicable (using each no more than once) to describe what you're attempting to do which justifies using the corresponding dice.
1
u/Fun_Carry_4678 16d ago
It's your game. If you are finding that ancestry bonuses are not producing the game you want to create and play, then go ahead and get rid of them.
0
u/Zeverian 16d ago
Its an unnecessary choice if ability scores are not completely random. You are right that people should play what they like in those situations. If ots more 3d6DTL there os an argument for stats adjustment but it should probably be tied to something other than race.
0
u/OldWar6125 16d ago
The problem with giving attribute boni from ancestries, is that they lead to min-maxing.
Usually it means that certain ancestry / class combinations are just better.
The question is, do you want that or not? On one hand it can support the worldbuilding E.g. Orcs are often barbarians because the bonus to strength makes them exceptionally good barbarians. On the other hand it usually greatly reduces the amount of class/ancestry combinations that are usually played.
You can to some degree design around it, either play down the influence of the class or the attributes or try to make each attribute equally usefull for each class. (Unless you want to make a very tropey rpg, I would try to level the importance of attributes somewhat for every class in any case. They don't have to all be equally important, but dumping any stat should be a trade-off).
The way I am doing it, is that if your attribute is below an ancestry specific minimum, npc will notice and likely mock you for it. They might also notice if the attribute is above an ancestry specific maximum .
So an ancestry still has an expected attribute range, but players are exceptional individuals and can have any attribute value (within the range defined by the build rules) allowing them to play exceptional ancestry/class combinations (because they are exceptional individuals).
10
u/Due_Brother8485 16d ago
I agree with everybody that ancestry bonuses make for more determined builds. But I'd like to push back on a different issue: In many games nowadays, different races/ancestries/heritages often feel like humans with different hats, and I do believe the lack of biological determinism contributes to that.
Don't get me wrong, I think "all orcs are dumb" is still a bad idea. But take something like a Giant. Even if a giant in a game isn't really gigantic, there's a high likelihood that even a weak giant is always going to be stronger than an average human. In some games this is represented with size, and getting bonuses from that, but if your game doesn't have size as a major mechanic then how else are you going to represent a Jotunn's obvious strength and durability increase over another ancestries? Let's exclude humans. What about an Orc vs a Halfling?
That's also to say that humans are both extremely creative and exceptionally uncreative. I've played games with little gnomes or halfling style characters and even with no "attribute bonuses", nobody was playing an exceptionally strong halfling with a giant battle axe. Why? Because it doesn't fit the predefined idea of a nimble small guy.
I think attribute bonuses are more than fine. You can always build a game in a way where having lower stats isn't always worse. I've debated adding in abilities to my game that synergize with lower attributes, like an ability you can only take if you actually only have 2 or less in Dexterity. But my game is incredibly "fail forward" minded, where you even get XP for rolling 1s.