Categorization on Species selection screen

[mumra]

I also had a shot at doing something similar with species, I hope you see a sort of logic in my groupings. The middle column could be split in two, perhaps one for normal size beings, and another for small / large?

Regarding this, I'd say "Mythical" instead of "Hybrid" (and possibly move Felid there). "Non-human" is basically "Tolkienesque" but not sure what to call it. Spriggan should go with the Elves. Perhaps split it up into Elves/Dwarves/Halfling (Humanoid) and Orcs/Trolls/etc. (Monsters? Dwellers?)

[danr]

Felids - this is not a hybrid / mythical race. They are actually basically cats. Just intelligent ones.

"Tolkienesque" - I don't think this name would fly.

Here are my thoughts on four basic categories of species:

"Between Heaven and Hell" - these are not so much different species as they are beings with different divine / dead / undead / demonic statuses. E.g. a demigod is a human who is descended from the gods.

"Fantasy - Standard" - Elves, dwarves, orcs. "Normal" sized fantasy. These are the basic, standard, most well known fantasy species (yes, Tolkienesque).

"Fantasy - Big & Small" - all the big and small races.

"Mythical" - These species mostly come from classical (e.g. greek/roman) mythology as opposed to Tolkien. Most are some hybrid of human and animal form.

[TGW]

Racial categories are basically completely arbitrary and meaningless. I don't know how the suggested ones would be meant to help anyone.

[dpeg]

I agree with TGW although there are some sensible groupins: Undead (Gh, Mu, Vp), perhaps Elves (DE, HE, SE), and Large (Og, Tr) and Small (Ko, Ha, Sp, Fe). I am just not sure if those are worth headings in the species screen.

[danr]

I was just thinking that for consistency if there are categories on the background screen, there might be some categorization on the species screen as well.

There are some meaningful differences, albeit not as significant as on the class screen.

The first category - most of these species have pretty undifferentiated aptitudes
The second - these get racial bonuses and can wear anything
The third - these have some armour and weapon restrictions due to their size, and have special metabolism and dodging considerations related to size
The last - okay, this is pretty much purely thematic.

It may not be that helpful, but it does at least makes it easier to remember where in the list different species are. The current ordering is very unintuitive, it took me a while to figure out that it is alphabetic, but the subspecies are grouped together (e.g. all Elves are under "E").

It would just look better and be easier to find things. No, it wouldn't really shed much light on meaningful playstyle differences.

However, I don't want to detract from the other suggestion for the class selection screen. I hope this gets implemented! I'm guessing it's fairly simple to do?

[mumra]

I'm guessing it's fairly simple to do?

As a developer, I fear those words

Regarding Felids, I think a hyper-intelligent magic-capable cat is pretty mythical (in fact perhaps right out of Egyptian mythology).

The humans category is really pretty small (I don't think Demigod or Demonspawn remotely count - demonspawn is half-man half-demon so would fit better with the Mythicals).

Really it's about splitting things thematically so it's easy for relative newcomers to understand, rather than categorising loosely on abilities and restrictions.

So I'd say Humanoid (humans, elves, dwarfs, ogres), Monsters/Creatures (orcs, trolls, maybe felids fit better now), Mythical (everything else).

[danr]

I'm sure changing the startup screen is simpler than, say, adding a new god.

Another approach for species would be to group them roughly by how they are weighted between fighting and spellcasting, and have three categories - neutral, melee-oriented and magic-oriented. To determine this, subtract spellcasting aptitude from fighting aptitude. So a species with +1 in each, or -1 in each, would be "neutral".

DE: Fgt (-2) - Spc (4) = -6: Magic oriented
Mi: Figt (2) - Spc (-3) = 5: Melee oriented

Or, you could group them by their strongest aptitude in each of the following: Fighting, Spellcasting, Ranged (whichever is highest of the four)

However, I worry this approach would lead to people having blinders on and not trying things like TrWz or SpBe. I'd still prefer some kind of thematic grouping (Humanoid, Undead, Small, etc.)

[KoboldLord]

If we want to group races on the chargen screen, I suggest the following:

Mundane: These races are mostly human-like. They have skill aptitudes that are better or worse, often pushing them in some developmental direction, but in the end they all support all the major playing styles. This group contains humans, the various flavors of elves, mountain dwarves, and even minotaurs and halflings even though those have some racial mutations.

Quirky: These races have some feature that significantly impacts playing style regardless of which background is chosen. They may have some special benefit that allows them to ignore some type of challenge, or they may have a major flaw that requires the player to work around it. Examples include deep dwarves, naga, and spriggans.

Challenge: These races are interesting because they are bad. They might have some unique advantages, but on balance choosing one of these is a handicap to the player. Don't complain to the devteam that they're weak; that's the point. Ogre is an example here.

[jpeg]

Elves and even Naga/Centaurs are much closer to Humans than any of the undead species. Grouping them together would be completely misleading.

Any grouping should take into account the difference in gameplay, similar to KoboldLord's grouping.

1. Normal, straight-forward playstyle: Barring aptitude differences these play pretty much the same: Human, elves, MD, Mi, Ko, HO, Og, Ha.
2. Quirky, as above but with significant mutational specialties: Centaur, Naga, Merfolk, Kenku, Spriggan, Troll, Draconian, Demigod.
(Centaurs and Kenku might also fit into group 1, Draconians and Spriggans in group 3.)
3. Wildly different playstyle: Coincidentally, this covers all undead species + Demonspawn. Also Felid, Deep Dwarf.

(Though I've got to say the grouping by melee vs. magic orientated aptitudes is also intriguing.)

[mumra]

Mundane / Specialist / Eccentric ?

[vintermann]

jpeg: I'd put demonspawn in group 2 max, kenku in group 1, and spriggans in group 3. Also, Ogres in group 2 on account of their armour/defense problems. Possibly demigod in 1.

Rationale: Restrictions, such as a spriggan's herbivore 3, matter a lot more for playstyle than advantages. You can choose to make good use of a race's advantages, or you can neglect them in favour of strategies you're more efficient with, or situational advantages (such as finding good equipment of a certain type). However, you have to take disadvantages into account.

[zasvid]

I think that grouping species will never produce a satisfactory result. They vary too wildly. Only dpeg's thematic categorisation makes sense, but it's not very informative.