August 12, 2001

Why Humans Suck in RPGs

This seems to be one of those things that game designers do just because this is the way it's always been done.

Problem is, it has always been the Wrong Way To Do It. It's an approach that has never worked, and never will work. The basic premise is flawed, so every possible permutation of this approach is equally flawed. Every single time this is attempted, in worlds where humans are typically the "predominant" species, the humans wind up sucking at everything.

Here's the deal: You want multiple species. Let's keep things simple and say we want Dwarves, Elves and Humans.

Humans are our baseline standard. We determine what bonus to give to other species based on how they compare to Humans.

Dwarves are stronger than humans, so we give them a +1 strength. Elves are more agile than humans, so we give them a +1 dexterity.

But we want to keep things balanced, so we examine the other species' shortcomings as well (technically Elves would be a race of the Human species, rather than a seperate species, but that's a topic for another day). Dwarves aren't as agile as Humans, so we give them a -1 dexterity. Elves aren't as hardy as humans, so we give them a -1 constitution.

Then we make a second pass and do this again. Dwarves are also hardier than humans, +1 constitution. And Elves are also smarter than humans, so +1 intelligence. We'll "balance" it out by giving Dwarves a -1 to intelligence and we'll pop elves with a -1 to their strength.

The above is just an example. Any resemblance to any real game system is purely coincidental. And, incidentally, this also applies to Sci-Fi RPGs with multiple species: Humans, Greys and those Acid-for-blood Aliens that explode out of your stomache, let's say. Whatever.

In the end, the Game Designer puts these numbers in a little speadsheet and totals up all the numbers. Like this:

The Game Designer takes a look at that big bold ZERO in the lower right-hand corner and concludes, "Ah ha, I have achieved a balanced game system."

'Course, she's wrong. The first Game Designer to take this approach was wrong, and every Game Designer that has followed in his footsteps and utilized the above approach has been wrong too.

There are mainly two reasons why this doesn't work. The first has to do with the way the rest of the game system works (no matter what the rest of the game system is, incidentally). The second has to do with the way players min-max in order to achieve the best possible character to suit their playstyle (which is really what results in "Gee, Humans suck.").

First, this method makes the erroneous assumption that all stats are equal in value to the player. Whether this is true or not, or rather to what degree it isn't true (since there has never been a game system created yet in which all stats are equal in value), depends on the exact game system. Regardless of how wrong it is, in any case, it is always wrong. Always. One point of strength never has the same value as one point of intelligence. It's more, or it's less, but it is never the same. RPG systems are too complex for this, but the problem is further exacerbated by the skill or class selection process: Even if one point of strength is worth the same as one point of intelligence overall - it's highly unlikely that a point of strength is equal to a point of intelligence to, say, a warrior. The Intelligence is Nigh Useless, and the Strength is paramount.

This approach is typically defended by saying that Humans are the Versatile Species. Sure, they aren't as strong as Dwarves nor as Agile as Elves, but by golly, they are Versatile. They're also not as weak as Elves, nor as clumsy as Dwarves, or whatever.

I've yet to see a game system where Versatility is all that great a boon. Put another way, it means that Humans are tied-for-second-place with all the other species, in terms of which species is "best" at which profession. The first-place-species is the one with the bonuses to stats most important to that class. The last place species might not be Human, but only masochists and True Foaming Role-Players will ever choose the oddball mis-matched species and profession selections.

To make things even worse, in some game systems you can't choose the odd-ball mismatch: In 1st and 2nd Edition D&D, for example, Dwarves couldn't choose to be Magic-Users even if the player begged for a second-rate, handicapped character. Now that's some nice game design there for an RPG: Punish the Role Players and, failing that, just tell them "No".

Even with just three species, we already have a world in which Humans are the worst Magic Users (unless we allow dwarves to be magic-users, in which case they'll be so rare that humans will still be the de facto worst). Humans are also the lousiest Warriors (except for elves, but then if you wanted to be a warrior, why did you pick Elf as your species in the first place? Well, no matter, you'll just be punished for that decision by taking a -1 to the stats that are most important to you, in exchange for a +1 to stats that probably don't matter all that much).

This could still be defended, if Dwarves, Elves and Humans are the only species that players have to choose from. The imbalance is still there, but it really isn't all that much of a disparity. So we'll throw in some other species: Gnomes, Halflings, several different flavors of Elves and Dwarves. Heck, how about an Ogre, Troll, Half-Elves, Dragons and whatever else we can pull out of our hats? With each species we add, humans get one more species with which they are (at best) "tied with", in terms of being the wrong species to play for any given profession.

This doesn't even begin to address species-specific abilities, such as infravision, regeneration, multi-lingualism, and so on. Each species gets a boon in some area, some trivial and infrequently applied penalty (Dwarves can't swim, let's say), and Humans get Jack.

This doesn't result in humans being the "most versatile" species. It just results in humans always being the wrong species to choose for your class. Want to be a warrior? Don't be an Elf or a Human. Want to be a magic-user? Don't be a Dwarf or a Human. In reward for picking the "right" species, we'll also give you some species-specific abilities that will no doubt come in handy (heck, we'll even give you some perks if you do choose the wrong species: As long as you don't pick Human!). In exchange for these perks, you'll lose some points of stats that don't matter, and maybe face an obstacle in some rare circumstances that you almost never have to face in the first place.

The Solution to this problem depends on the exact game system. Is it skill or class-based? Just how many other species are there? Will more species be added later? How much is a point of Charisma worth, really? Are the species-specific abilities applicable to multiple environments, or are they only really useful in the species' primary habitats? Are the species-specific penalties broadly applicable, or are they handicaps that are almost never applied?

The main thing to do here would be: Don't Do This! It has never worked. If you want multiple species, start over and come up with some other solution. If you want Humans to be "The Versatile Species" then you should consider giving Humans more stats overall, then using at least enough of a skill-based system so that all stats are useful, regardless of which "profession" the player is pursuing.

That'd be a start, anyway.

FastCounter by bCentral

Page Layout snarfed from http://www.webpagedesign.com.au, but I did the java buttons myself. With MS-Paint!