Non human races: Should they be "balanced"?

By Yepesnopes, in WFRP Gamemasters

Posted at

There are very interesting points here, bith pro balance and againts balancing. I would like to comment on that a bit further, but it is a bit late for me today.

So, since I am againts the balancing of non-human races stats and habilities (but pro overall PC balancing through other meanings) I will just post the PC races stats of one of the best rpg's ever, WFRP 1st ed. Bear in mind when looking at the table that (differently from 3rd ed where all the races have a maximum of 6 in any stat) in the 1st ed starting with a higher characterisitc meant also that your maximum characterisitc by "the end of the game" was also higher, typically between +30% /+3 - +40% /+4 higher than your starting stat.

PC%20races%20WFRP%201.jpg .

Posted at

Yepesnopes said:

PC%20races%20WFRP%201.jpg .

I believe this chart is missing Fate Points, which was a balancing factor.

Posted at

Exactly Doc!

And that is my point, balance should come from other sources.

Posted at

Well, that and 1st ed had random characteristics, which intrinsically ignores balance.

Posted at

Yepesnopes said:

dvang don't turn this into a fight. Please, read carefully that I said that the races were not balanced regarding stats.

I can give you the examples, no problem, for example in D&D in the Dark Sun setting there were the race of the Thri-Kreen whith higer stats. The same in WFRP 1st and 2nd editions, the stats of Dwarfs and Elves were just much higher than those of humans, therefore they were for example better warriors.

Actually, I have the feeling that you and me agree in this subject. I DO think that there should exist a balance in between the playable races. But the balance should not be necessarely found in the stats (strength, wounds, agility etc.) or especila racial habilities (corruption, night vision etc.). Instead, one can found different ways on balancing the races by for example, as you mentioned, restricting careers; or as has been commented in this post, by demanding a especial role play for the races.

The GM should find the way to balance the different player characters by allowing all of them to shine at specific moments. On the other hand, I firmly believe that non-human races must keep they flavor, that is if Dwarfs are toughter than humans that should properly represented by the rules.

I certainly wasn't intending to 'fight', so I apologize if it was taken that way. I just disagreed that the races weren't balanced. Now, since you've clarified that you meant balanced regarding stats/characteristics ... well, then I'll agree that just about every single RPG that has different races does not balance races purely by stats. The balance comes with the overall racial "package", rather than just stats.

Despite the additional points to spend, humans are slightly worse off in characteristic points than the elves and the dwarfs due to the free characteristics points the other races get. Perhaps the characteristics advantage isn't as obvious as it is with previous editions, but it is there.

Dwarves are naturally tougher than humans and elves, but it is possible for a man to be tougher. Look at your chart from the previous edition. A Man has a T of D3+1, while a dwarf has a d3+2. A Man who rolls well has the potential to have a higher toughness than a dwarf who rolls poorly. If both rolls are equal, the dwarf is tougher. In 3rd Edition, this equates to the player spending points on the PC's characteristic. A human who spends points on To will be able to have a higher To than a dwarf who spends nothing. If the human and the dwarf spend (approximately) the same amount of points/effort in raising their To, the dwarf will be tougher.