Warhammer 40k needs a "Furry" Faction + The Fensi

Yeah I said it.

Let's get real for a second. I think it's pretty obvious that this blog is kinda "furry". I consider myself a furry as well. Despite this, I have a sort of inherent dislike of things "trying too hard", the furry-fatigue saps my interest in a setting or piece of media. Things "too furry" ruin it for me; like a fantasy setting with humans, elves, and then ten different beastfolk race. I'm alright with humans only, I prefer a good mix, but I'm not alright with anthros only for fantasy unless it's for a very specific purpose. Stuff like Zootopia is fun for its visual gags and clever contrasting of species, but it's not really meant for high level worldbuilding. Beastars also gets a pass since its about its predator/prey dynamics and behavior with modern (Japanese) life. But stuff like Ironclaw I don't really gel with; I get the feeling like it's the most boring basic and low effort fantasy just with a furry coat of paint on top. (The artstyle doesn't help), but that's not really fair. It is 100% furry though; I just know it when I see it.

How do we define "furry"? The classic answer is anything involving anthropomorphic animals, ie; animals that walk upright and have humanoid features and usually talk or do behaviors outside of their normal natural behaviors, would be furry. But this isn't a sufficient definition; there are a lot of works of media featuring furries that are rarely considered furry. Redwall, for example, features exclusively anthropomorphic characters, but is rarely considered "furry" in itself; it is moreso one of the gateways into the furry fandom given its status as a children's book series.

There is a second shadow definition; roughly "would some fat guy jack off to this?". The more true you can see it, the more "furry" a furry thing is. But it's not really fair to write off anything because it's someones fetish, the Space Wolves Space Marines are 100% bait for a wolfaboo 40k enjoyer; but they're also still really fucking cool. So what it comes down to is a balance between the projected "self indulgent creator" something has, and the thematic value that can be extracted from its constituent parts.

But how "furry" is something and how can we create something of the right balance? It's not as easy as it first appears. There are tons of anthropomorphic animal people in fantasy and sci-fi fiction, but that doesn't automatically make them furry. In the same way you see a cool lizardman from Warhammer fantasy and can still say it's a little furry but it's much less furry then say a werewolf. "Werewolves are cool monsters though!" I know, but they're a "furry" monster. But a werewolf is still much less furry then a dog anthro, which is in turn less furry then a sparkledog. Part of this comes down to species, the presentation, and its role in the media work, story, or whatever else.

This is by no means an exhaustive list, but here are some traits I've narrowed down to signal if a anthropomorphic species, faction, or character is furry.

• Mammals are more furry then other animal species. Canids get extra points.
• More rare species are more furry. Such as a maned wolf being more furry then a standard wolf.
• Unique coloration or markings; especially born with it. Heterochromia free space.
• Hybrids or extra animal body-parts are significantly more furry then a regular baseline creature of its real world counterpart species. Ugly or monstrous mutations are less furry; ie Warhammer Beastmen are less furry then a winged fox-wolf hybrid for example.
• Good aligned or at least positively viewed in its work. If they be subject to unfair treatment, then the audience is supposed to view it as them overcoming oppression/surviving being persecuted unfairly. They never deserve it. Overlapping trait with general Mary Sue profile.
• Usually magical; and closely related to nature and/or moral power systems. You're much more likely to see a "furry" character practicing chi manipulation or elemental magic then being imbued with cybernetics or using dark necromancy spells, for example.
• Cute, or at least drawn in a favorable way. Age range tends towards the young adult/author self-insert age, but almost never old/gray/haggard/scarred/etc. Disabilities, trauma, or other flaws are usually invisible or relegated to the aesthetic facial scar category.
• If violent; high level of proficiency, though rarely aggressive or domineering. "Hidden Badass" trope. Speed & Skill is usually preferred over brute strength, but this is dependent on species.
• Stereotypical traits of the animal species its based on, but rarely the more unsavory elements. ie; Bears are big, honest, love honey, and may hibernate but don't practice random infanticide for example.
• Sexual or romantic profile exactly as author's home culture; usually modern 2000s leniency towards homosexuality & casual sex; with mutual consent being most important factor as opposed to natural mating behaviors of its species or a more traditionalist culture. High degree of fetish content is specific to sexual content/porn, not that common in "normal" furry creation.
• Genders are almost always treated equally. Sexual dimorphism, if any, is regulated to appearance and is based solely on the host species.

So working backwards from this list, how do we create something "furry"? Well firstly, it must be adapted to its genre or host-work. Which leads me to part two.

Warhammer 40k & Faction Design
So 40k is a grimdark setting. Most of the races are engaged in genocidal wars with the other factions, meaning cooperation is very limited. While it's not "species = faction" given things like the Eldar vs Dark Eldar and the many, many human factions, but it's pretty close. The sole notable exception are the Tau, who are one of the few multi-species factions and are kind of meant to be the "tragic doomed good guy" faction in some ways. Even with this, some 40k fans think they're a bit toothless and don't fit with the general vibe of the setting; so our furry faction will have to be at least as bad as them, if not worse.

Disclaimer: I have never played or know anything about 40k besides what I read on wikis. So this entire exercise is just was wank as your own personal headcanon. If anything, maybe moreso, since there are probably other species or groups in 40k that deserve to be a faction way more then anything I could create; and that's valid. For this blogpost, I did at least do a little research, since the 40k game design element of this is what I'm least well equipped to handle in the "just making shit up" category.

Besides the grimdark element, each faction in 40k tends to have different unique traits. While there are many human factions that share similar aesthetics and technological basis, each Xeno species has a few traits across all of them that might work as a basis.

Species	Human / Imperium	Eldari / Dark Eldar
Physical	Humans	Elf (Better humans)
Tech	Ancient, Bulky, Industrial	Magictechish
Aesthetics	Iconography, Gothic, “Used Future”	Organic but not biotech
Gameplan	Varies (Diverse)	Fast & Mobile
Magic/Psionics	Chaos-susceptible, dangerous psykers	High emotions need restraint
Ideology	Fascist Empire w/ Theocratic tone	Independent & Conservative

Species	Ork	Tyranids
Physical	Green, Big, Brutish, Fungal	Insectoid; just Xenomorphs
Tech	Scavenged	True biotech & natural traits
Aesthetics	Scrap, Chaotic, Tribal	Limbs, splines, carapace
Gameplan	GO IN	Swarm (big monsters sometimes)
Magic/Psionics	Gestalt belief-field	Hive-Mind
Ideology	Tribal, “Might makes Right”	Survival/Animal

Species	Tau	Necrons
Physical	Various (Multi-Species)	Machine, Skeletal
Tech	Automatons, Cutting-Edge	Alienware Sarcophagi
Aesthetics	Mecha-inspired, sleek, utopian	Egyptian, Terminator
Gameplan	Ranged shooters	Tank Everything
Magic/Psionics	None	Rewrite reality, Matrix-code
Ideology	Real Politik, Communistic	Domination

Ideally, any new factions would want to have something that's different about them to all the other factions in each of these categories, while keeping in mind the medium they're being designed for. For example, you wouldn't want to make an army more hoard-y then the Tyranids; trying to fit any more pieces on a board then that would just be annoying. Likewise a faction of giant flying space psychic space whales might also be cool; but would be awkward in the context of a tabletop wargame.

Quick side note: Only now reading this do I realize how little of the "each species has one biome" thing 40k actually does. It's refreshing, because it's probably my biggest pet peeve in sci-fi. But at the same time, it'd be rather unique to do something like it, given the all-encompassing nature of 40k's races; that sort of flavor is mostly reserved for individual factions or space marine chapters and the like. 

Of course, the real answer of "what should the new faction of 40k be" is the myraid of unexplored factions and species already existent in the setting people have been wanting to see for a long time. They might be more deserving, and I'm sure your headcanon is more legitimate then mine. But this is just for fun; so what's a unique "furry" faction we could add distinct to the rest? (And if the Tau pissed off the neckbeards back in the day, oh boy).

The Fensi
Originating from their desert-dominated homeworld of Hassalude, the Fensi are a race of anthropomorphic canids similar in appearance to Fennec Foxes from earth. Their huge ears meant to help locate prey and cool off in the harsh desert conditions where they evolved are their primary distinguishing feature. After being born, Fensi kits quickly grow to a large size with long and disproportionately slender limbs, and die of old age in just a few short Terran years. However, due to a unique element of their culture, the Fensi can live much longer then their natural lifespan during which they slowly shrink in size. This confounds members of the other races, especially the Orks, but to the Fensi, the smallest among them are the oldest and richest, because of their access to Lux.

Lux is a unique substance cultivated by the Fensi. It's a type of specially processed water infused with psionic energy; farmed in special condenser farms and gardens by underclass workers. It can only be gathered on living planets, but seems to keep a store of all the psionic energy of beings who live within its water-cycle. Beyond being perfectly shelf-stable, drinkable, and resisting evaporation from the harsh desert wind, making it a trading currency to their early cultures; Lux is also known to infuse the drinker with an accumulation of psionic energy. While its original effects may have only been related to the health-benefits of good hydration, Lux has been so valued and singularly important in their capitalistic culture that it has become a vessel for value, power, and importance itself; the very drive to acquire Lux has made it more potent.

The Fensi culture is that of competition, hierarchy, and opportunity. While they have laws that protect individuals and private enterprise; their entire culture is about the accumulation of wealth (Lux) by the wealthiest that is often taken from the poorest. Because of their biology, young Fensi are the main laborers, using their big bodies to tend to the gardens and dig for insects to eat, eventually dying of old age in just a few short years if their lips never had a taste of Lux. Trade unions and mercenary armies make up the middle classes, to who which belong Fensi that are shorter and more stout in stature; similar in size to a regular Imperium human. Finally, the aristocrats of their race are the smallest of all, looking more like an upright talking fox instead of a powerful and dangerous Xeno. But this appearance can be deceiving, as these Fensi are the most powerful in their culture; with innate psionic protection and strength making them formidable foes.

Beyond their capitalistic traits, Fensi love art and luxury of all kinds. They prefer colorful clothing and dress, and even reflect this in their machines and military uniforms. Rare artifacts from other civilizations are traded freely and openly in Fensi bazaars and markets; with no regard for possible contamination by Chaos or restricted technology. While Slaanesh primarily gorges herself on the souls of the Elder; the much decadent Fensi upperclass may one day draw her eye.

Fensi tools, weapons, and even spaceships are all powered by Lux. This single-minded approach to resources has made their industry second only to the Imperium in grand scale. Unlike the Imperium however, the Fensi are very capitalistic. Their primary motivation to explore the galaxy and expand is profit and acquiring more Lux, first and foremost. Instead of exterminating another species on sight, they'd much prefer to barter and trade with them, but always to the benefit of whatever Fensi struck up the deal. Their power structure is colonial and imperialistic; establishing colonies on many worlds to suck up their "living water" using private mercenary armies and underhanded tactics to try and make a profit. They are willing to cooperate with many species in the galaxy, but only for the pursuit of wealth.

Fensi Factions
Whipsands Trading Co.
This corporation prides itself on being the largest and most expansive entity in Fensi space; creating monopolized worlds and many exploitive colonies on many foreign worlds. It is defended by its own private army; though it much prefers to expand through trade contract and hostile takeover over direct force whenever possible. It's most powerful members are the board of directors, who are the original founders of the company still alive since the very first of their race left their planet to explore the galaxy and gain profit from it.

Fensi Scouts- Light infantry sometimes found on foot or on the back of a younger long-limbed Fensi. These scouts are simultaneously skirmishers and skilled wilderness surveyors and prospectors, looking for watery oases in desert worlds or being bundled up to explore ice worlds.

Scout Gyrocopter- Fensi Scouts positioned in a flying machine, used for surveying the battlefield and taking weak, low damage potshots at enemies within a very long range. (I don't know 40k flying unit rules so I assume this would just be annoying and not OP)

Fensi Infantry- The standard Fensi infantry are middle-aged Fensi; shortened and stocky closer to human proportions. They wear elaborate costumes and fight in long line formations with their one-shot Lux Muskets. While not very mobile and not strong in melee, their mass shooting can be very deadly and they are well disciplined to be paid to keep order for the company.

Fensi Cavaliers- More heavily armored middle-aged Fensi with multiple carbines for a draw-and-fire approach. They ride on the back of large, younger Fensi.

Fensi Artillery- Powerful cannons using a variety of ammunition types. I imagine this as literally just a Napoleonic wars era type artillery cannon.

Cannonback- Artillery pieces put on the back of young Fensi, who carry them around to either fire a single inaccurate medium range explosive shot or can run into enemies to perform a kamikaze attack.

Fensi Grenadiers- Young Fensi wearing military dress and colorful uniforms, armed with shovels, axes, grenades, and Brewster style body-armor. Meant to break through enemy fortifications and act as a slightly heavier infantry. When each one is killed they drop live grenades as a small trick, taking out their own as well as enemies in melee range.

Bladetank- Large tanks powered by flywheels and Lux-devices; the entire outside is adorned with spinning blades and spikes. Primarily used as a method of breaking up worker revolts; it is a devastating vehicle made for melee combat and rushing into enemy infantry.

LuxWell- Large hovering shrine containing a large amount of Lux with many watering cans and urns besides, marked with company insignia. Designed as a sort of support unit that buffs nearby units (especially Elder Fensi). Kinda meant to be like a Tyranid Brain unit, but vulnerable if attacked directly.

Fensi Elder- Tiny Vulpera sized fox sitting on a self-propelled throne. (I like to imagine them in powdered wigs and frilly outfits, but anything regal and expensive will do). They are expensive in points and are usually named characters. They don't attack physically instead using psionic powers or telepathic suggestion to destroy opponents. Similar to the theme of slow but strong units reliant on positioning; the Fensi Elders would have turning rules but be extremely strong in close combat, having a death cone of attack in front of them you don't want to get funneled into. 

Worker Union
Because of the Fensi's capitalistic culture, the majority of their population exist within an exploited underclass. With short lifespans and tech-enforced monopolies on all trade and property; a growing resistance is brewing in the Fensi's lower and middle classes. While much poorer then the Whipsands corporation, the newly created Worker Union attempts to make up for it in numbers and cooperation. In the grim darkness of the future; there is only class warfare.

Fensi Burrowers- Fensi prefer to live underground in burrows; some little more then a hole in the ground and others elaborate subterranean palaces. The first step to all are burrowers; shovel-wielding very-young Fensi given limited armor and no training or expectation of survival. These Fensi can be used to create emergency cover or tunnels on a battlefield, or thrown into the enemy as an expendable shock troop.

Farmer Militia- Small land-owning farmers who can only create a meager amount of Lux, constantly pushed to sell their properties or in competition to larger corporations. Armed with simple flintlock Lux guns and machetes used for cutting vegetation now act as cheap but flexible infantry.

Arsonists- Those who burn factories and plantations of the wealthy classes; repurposed as a regular unit. Luxfire hits a zone on the table and stays for a long time, but can be instantly snuffed by the controlling player as a sort of unique area-control tool.

Abolistionist- Cool Elder Fensi riding a motorcycle (maybe a monowheel or old timey-bike with one big and one small wheel), who is a much more mobile but less powerful version of the Fensi Elder. They'd move around the battlefield getting to do AoE blasts around them in a small range each turn, prioritizing hit and run tactics or maybe they could "reverse polarity" and suck enemies towards them making them really good when matched with artillery, which are of course way more expensive for this faction or you need to pull enemies into Luxfire, or something like that.

Species	Fensi
Physical	Anthromorphic Animal-People (Foxes)
Tech	Retrofuturistic, Hand-Crafted, Hydraulic
Aesthetics	Desert Traders, Military Dress, Steampunk, Fantasy-Bazaar
Gameplan	Area Denial & Defensive Depth
Magic/Psionics	Wealth is Power
Ideology	Capital Exploitation & Colonialism

Design Goals
Basically I was trying to make something a little different but still fit in the world of 40k. I don't think it fits very well into 40k in my opinion; too much like a historical fantasy and not sci-fi enough and without the brutal grimdarkness. Notice how most 40k races have at least some kind of conversion or massive survival tactic like Necrons being unkillable machines or Orks having a fungal lifecycle. The Fensi are perfect as one of those xenos the Imperium wiped out centuries ago at least, don't really know if it has the "juice" of a full fledged faction. They'd probably just be a Tau side-species if anything.

Design wise? I don't know enough about 40k factions to say what kind of gameplay is unique. But I think a faction focused on slow and restricted units (like flintlocks who have to reload for a turn, or area-denial artillery and so on) that are strong but very clunky to use are interesting in the context of modern firearms, psionic spells, hovertanks, and other 40k-ish staples. This could totally already exist in the game though and I just wouldn't know any better. Overall, I don't think it's very good, but was fun to come up with.

Why aren't TTRPGS more like Paper Mario + Granular Damage Upgrades

When it comes to TTRPGs and their video game cousins, the obvious D&D inspired games come to mind first. But one thing I find weird is the seeming rarity and lack of "very low number" games. Paper Mario & Thousand Year Door are the most prominent; along with their more modern offspring like Bug Fables. Specifically; games with turn based combat, small scale battles with few characters or units, and very small damage numbers; typically ranging from 1-9 as a soft maximum for "normal" attacks, usually only accessible very late in the game. Instead, much more of the focus is placed on things like timing imputs to increase damage or reduce incoming damage, status effects, resource management in the form of consumable items and FP/TP/abilities, specific attack types and their counters (spike on head = can't jump on them) and target priority. While some of these are video game specific, most of the elements could be translated directly into a tabletop RPG style game with no issue. The strange thing is I really haven't seen it done before. I'm sure there are some smaller games that have similar systems in place; but the closest I can think of is something akin to fantasy wargaming or Warhammer-like games. This fits for them because making the many hundreds of units and models as complex as your average D&D character would be too daunting; so simple wound or instant-death mechanics, armor counted as single numbers which must be met or beat by attacks similar to Paper Mario defense; with dice more deciding individual outcomes over granular damage/health systems is a good fit here. Ironic that the game-mechanics I'm thinking would be the simplest and most immediately useful system for TTRPGs goes right back to the hobby's roots.

The benefits of such a system? Small numbers keep match simple and easily approachable. There is a level of strategy that is present here that isn't in more "swingy" dice-combat games like D&D. Hit Dice are a good approximation of how much health an enemy has, but even a d6 weapon has six possible outcomes, meaning any approximation of your resources in how many more turns it may take to defeat this enemy, or how much ammunition or spell-dice you need to use, or how many bandages you need to use to heal someone; etc. could all be off by about six times your estimate. It's unlikely, but a possibility. With a smaller number system, you can predict these things much more. Secondly, you create more immediate and obvious strategic depth in its basic systems. Defense reducing all incoming damage by +1 is much more obvious then a D&D esque weapon vs Armor-Class penetration rate; even though you know padded armor gives you +2 AC against blunt weapons or whatever, how much damage does it actually prevent? First you have to calculate the chance of the attack and then the average damage on a roll and so on, where as a Paper Mario system doing something similar is just -1 to damage. Very simple. Abilities that penetrate or remove armor (or grant bonus damage) are immediately obvious in how they'll influence the outcome of a battle. You can't grant +1 to a character's Attack per level up or +1 Defense per small gear upgrade for example, it'd be way too overwhelming and quickly break the math of the game- games with larger numbers have a lot more leeway. Plus, the smaller numbers makes moments of bigger impact grander and more memorable. I won't really notice when enemies start doing 1000 damage to me if the last fight they were doing 500+; but you will remember the first time a boss or a mob hits you for 10 damage in a Paper-Mario-Like. That's reserved for the "oh shit" moments. I also find systems like this more fun to mess around with, as there is a certain challenge to designing in such a tight space; But more on this later.

Of course, there are good reasons why we don't use this "small number" system for TTRPGs: Granularity. Highly granular systems allow for smaller advantages or changes that can adapt for more situations; a +1 to hit on a d20 is a fair benefit for a racial bonus or background feature of a character to show a varied and complete person as simulated in the game world. Giving a +1 to your Attack in a Paper Mario esque system could translate to a 50% increase or more; which means it could be many, many sessions or power-ups or require a big in-universe justification for this increase. Second, it also greatly reduces the amount of variety and "fuzz" of the rules, meaning situations play out with less randomness and encounter design has to be stricter. D&D can already kinda be solved in a math-y way but with a system like this it would get way worse. Players could potentially figure out the outcome of any given fight or encounter, leading to a more boring or "pass/fail" style of gameplay that wouldn't be as fun in my opinion. There might be some strategic value in knowing that you can always beat an ogre at your level (it does 3 damage a turn to you, you do 4 damage to it, and it has 20 health, so as long as you have at least 13 health and you can go first you know you can win), I don't think it's the kind of strategy or "character building" most people want to play TTRPGs for.

Also, obviously, it's because rolling dice is fun and tied to the wargaming roots of the hobby. This system necessitates dice rolling as being less important, and therefore, the most fun part of the hobby is less represented. All of this is obvious, and doesn't need to be stated by a pseudointellectual like myself. So instead, we're going to end this rant prematurely and go on to the game theory bit that's actually good.

How to add Damage Upgrades for Small Number Systems
Specifically for a Bug Fables or Paper Mario-like game or a TTRPG with a similar setup.

As stated above adding a +1 Damage modifier is only something you can do very occasionally as it throws the entire game out of whack. So how do we have meaningful character progression? The first way are increases to non-direct stats. So increased chance to hit, ease of minigame success, increased maximum hit points, having stronger or more varied access to moves and status effects, etc. This is already covered above. But how do we actually do more damage? Without relying on these conditionals or random chance mechanics? Instead, we do it based on damage deference and the action economy.

Abilities that pierce Defense could count as a damage increase. For example, you can upgrade your attack so it ignores one point of the opponent's Defense. This effectively means it deals +1 damage against armored opponents. However, I consider this a sidegrade, because it doesn't increase your damage to non-armored targets. While it is still an improvement (obviously if the choice is between an attack with one pierce and an attack with the same damage and zero pierce it's still better) it's still a conditional and will usually have some kind of opportunity cost. As such, this is more of a sidegrade then a direct improvement to our damage.

Another low impact upgrade that's more granular and modular is bonus damage over a long period, which I'm calling long-distance damage. Something like a "deals one bonus damage in ten turns" which upgrades into a "deals one bonus damage in nine turns" count as a form of progression but are so granular that they miss the breakpoint of the system. While technically being identical to an increase of +0.1 damage for our attack it won't factor in to most combats if the enemies we're fighting have reasonable (small) HP pools and our attacks deal at least 2-5 damage a turn with proper setup. You could also use this for a damage improvement mechanic but it's very boring and lame.

Finally, the other is "bonus damage per X turns of combat". Something like a charge or initiative bonus, where you get +1 damage on the first round of combat. Upgrade it, now you get +1 damage on the first two rounds of combat, and so on. While technically a damage increase, it's also a conditional (based on turn number) and once again too strong for what we are going for (small granular improvements to our attack power). So how we increase our damage output for a basic attack that has immediate effect (turn by turn), based directly on turn order/effective for the action economy, not based on a conditional or resource, and not superficial or too granular to be useful?

Stage Zero- Basic Attack
Deals a set amount of damage in one or more hits. This is the vanilla attack, or zero investment.

Stage One- Basic Attack w/ Vulnerability Frame
Deals a set amount of damage and makes the enemy vulnerable to damage (taking +1 damage) if you hit them again in the following turn. The reason why this is a small granular increase of effective damage here is because it's a one turn status effect, which means you have to capitalize on it for next turn or you lose it. This means if you are stunned, need to block or heal, out of magic point for your attack, enemy moves, etc. you cannot capitalize on it. This could also be improved one or more times (by making this vulnerability last one or more extra turns) but this I would not consider an effective increase in our damage output enough to count as a higher "stage" of damage improvement, as it is simply a more convenient method of +1 damage.

Stage Two- Basic Attack w/ Deferred Damage
Deals a set amount of damage and the enemy will take +1 damage after their next turn. The after part is important. If the status effect did damage at the start of the turn, it would be functionally identical to a damage increase when it matters. (ie; enemy has 1 HP remaining after you hit them, at the start of the their turn means they can't act as they are defeated which is the same as if you just did +1 damage to them on your turn.) But by having it happen after their turn, the enemy can take their turn/action (potentially being saved by a heal or dealing damage to you) AND THEN takes the additional damage point, effectively giving your attack +1 damage when it CAN'T hit the breakpoint of stopping an enemy's action.

Stage Three- Basic Attack that deals +1 Damage
Deals a set amount of damage +1. Effective and immediate damage increase.

This three stage system is the most granular method of increasing damage in a way that actually changes the turn economy (ie; defeating an enemy before another turn can pass). Obviously game mechanics can be much deeper then this, but at its core mathematical principles, this one could serve as the basis for a character to advance their attack power in a game like this in a way that's actionable. So instead of getting a +1 Attack badge, you'd have to equip three to get that same effect, and each badge would give you the next stage. If you had four advancements in this system, then the attack would do +1 damage and give a 1 turn vulnerability frame and so on.

More Gemcraft Whining + The Problems with "Optimal" Choices in Games

So I wrote a bunch about my favorite tower defense game(s) ever in this previous blogpost, and in a very rare move for this blog I actually went back and edited it to add more of my thoughts to it, but I decided that STILL was not enough so here I am writing even more. This concept sort out branched out from me thinking of what I wanted out of my "dream" new Gemcraft game. Since the developer isn't working on the next one right now (which is fine by the way, after making and improving the same game for like 15 years you get a break, go off King), but after a lot of thought about it, I started to realize a few things, specifically about the colors of Gemcraft gems and limitations of a game.

Quick reminder; every color of Gem grants a special effect on a hit, like poison for green gems or slowing for blue gems. Gems in traps have great special but shit damage and range, where as towers have great range and damage but weaker specials. Mixing gem colors reduces their specials by a lot, but will slightly increase their base gems in dual and triple color gems.

This leads to a an interesting and (hopefully) strategically deep choice in the game. Do you want to run towers with weaker damage but better specials? Which specials? Or is the special so important you put in a trap? This already has a slight problem as there is almost no reason to put a dual or more color gem in a trap unless you can actually make it stronger with a buffing gem (Poolbound, Bloodhound) or make it hit multiple enemies (chain), but the core choice of what gems to use is part of the game and your strategy. I like this on the surface. But with more thought, a problem arises. Even if all gems are otherwise equal; There are just certain gems you're never going to put in towers and some you're never going to put in traps. Because they have different roles in the game, what types of gems are best for each are exclusive to each type. For example, putting an armor-shredding gem in a tower lets it remove a small amount of armor whenever it hits an enemy. Even if armor shredding was so important that it became a vital part of your strategy, why would you ever put it in a tower when you could put it in a trap and get the main value instead? Tower gems are things that support their function of damage with maybe a secondary effect. So crit gems, chain gems, maybe slow or poison and that's being generous along with the no-brainer gem colors that just make your gems "better" at everything. Meanwhile, gem effects that weaken monsters on a hit are just better to put in a trap, because they hit so much faster. Tower gems at least encourage you to mix and match colors for the dual or triple gem power bonus; so with no other important choices to make; I usually just defaulted to putting a Mana Gem as a tower gem component, since it will still generate a little bit of mana even when diluted since they attack so much. And this led to the real problem.

Engine Generation
In any tycoon, strategy, or game focused around resources or management; anything that generates more resources is always going to be the best strategy. This is totally fine in games designed around it, typically the idea is finding the best return on your investments or how to capitalize on them, but the problem is when they're provided as an alternate or "equal" choice to others.

Just think about it for a second. If you're playing an RPG and get the choice to take a reward from a quest and you can choose between a sword much better then your current one, a powerful and rare healing consumable, or an accessory that increases your experience gain by +5%, which one are you going to pick? Almost everyone is going to pick the experience booster. Not only because it's implied to last longer then the others, a temporary benefit as opposed to a permanent increase, but also because experience is going to be the engine driving the game and your progression forward. We can see this in almost every game. In 4x games, science tends to be King, and so the faction with the best science is almost always top of the tier list. In a fighting game, the character with the fastest attacks and best frame-data-advantage is going to be the best character, because they get the most "resources" in that style of game. Gemcraft exemplifies this problem even more because of how central mana is a resource; not just your method of crafting your defense but ALSO your health and ALSO your ability to invest in bombing enemy waves to get more XP and ALSO used as a panic button if things get too scary. It's the central resource of the game. The problem here is that a single gem color is by far and away SO much better then the other gems, so integral to the game's mechanics, that every single possible build and combination of strategies will feature them prominently. From beating a map normally to challenge modes to endless endurance waves to see how long you can last; all of them feature mana farming with orange gems as a core strategy. Using chain+mana+bloodhound for bonus to specials from hit can create an insanely powerful synergy that you place in traps near the start of each course, so every monster naturally gets hit by them, and you can build as many as you want. This not only trivializes campaign levels, but also lets you get to the highest scores of endurance and beat the hardest challenges as long as they're allowed within.

Do you see the issue with this?

I dislike games with false choices. Something obviously and miles above better then everything else doesn't lead to interesting and meaningful decisions in a game. TTRPG example? Oldschool Haste or Speed spells letting you get additional actions. So much stronger then any other choice, given the turn based nature of these types of games, that it becomes dumb NOT to use them. But I think the real issue with this is it creates a false dichotomy within the game itself, the player when playing, and the community around the game. The common argument of "if it's too strong just don't use it" doesn't really work, even for a single player game, because the game subconsciously or otherwise is DESIGNED with these strategies in mind. For Gemcraft in particular, the endgame super endurance waves are literally not feasible to beat without mana-farming, as monsters gain exponentially more hit points and armor to comparatively less and less mana farther on as the game goes. It is no longer just another tool in your toolbelt to decide how to built your defense, it is a mandatory part of every strategy that the other choices then take actual conscious thought. As such, it pains me to say that they won't be included in my much coveted Dream Gemcraft game, never to be described or quantified.

However, this isn't meant to be a total condemnation of the concept. Obviously, implementation matters more then inspiration; if the mana Gems had a cap (which older Gemcraft games had) or an extremely small return on investment, like it's only possible to get 10% return on a gem even after using it a hundred waves, then yes it would be much more "balanced", but would lean towards uselessness. Technically speaking there has to be some level where the effort and cost-basis is too much and a different effect would be better, it's just more of a mathematical effort then most people are willing to make. Finally; it should also be noted that no matter how well intentioned, balanced, or well-designed you make a game there will always be a "meta" or optimal strategy. That's just the result of human nature. I just find "economy engine building" type best strategies the most boring of all.

DBD's Game Design is pretty good actually + Mechanical "Breakpoints"

Art @BHVR Interactive

So I've been playing a lot of Dead by Daylight over the past few years. While not the sole reason this blog's been neglected and rotting away, it's definitely a factor. If you somehow have never heard of it, it's grindy game-as-a-job pay to win garbage, don't play it. But it is pretty fun.

One interesting thing about playing a game that's been around for such a long time, with so much exploration of its very rudimentary game mechanics, with such a large community and critical culture around its basal systems, is that you develop this sort of inbred and highly referential style of game design; where everything from character traits and personalities to tropes to supernatural powers are represented through a very strict set of game design principles and mechanics. In a sense, it's exactly the fucking same as D&D, but that's a topic for a whole different Vaguepost.

Sidenote: If you didn't get my rambling word salad above, what I mean is the game really hasn't changed in like 8 years despite having ten times the characters, perks, systems, etc. An example is the perk Self Preservation ; how do you represent a self-interested character who is willing to sacrifice others to get what they want or protect themselves? In some games this could be literally making them take a hit for you; but in DBD that would be absolute cancer. Instead? It hides your scratch marks, blood pools, and sounds of pain (ways you can be tracked) when one of your teammates takes a hit within a certain range (enforcing the flavor), meaning they are much more likely to continue to get attacked then you (appropriate benefit). It's thematically appropriate, but essentially a shrinking of all possible design space (or "story" if it was literature) to accommodate for the actual game being played.

Despite this grand diversity and development of mechanics; Dead by Daylight's core gameplay of a chase is extremely simple, and has essentially not changed in the majority of the game's lifespan. Basically; survivors who are healthy or at the start of the match make way less noise, and can be hit once to become injured. Once injured, they leave pools of blood and make more noise, and if hit again they will be downed and put into the dying state. While following the survivor, the Killer gains bloodlust that slowly makes them move faster. Survivors can avoid killers by using very obstacles in the map, like windows they jump through faster then Killers or dropping pallets that slow the Killers down as they break them. Once in the dying state, the Killer can hook the survivor which gets them closer to being sacrificed (killed), or they may be able to kill them themselves if a specific condition is met; but for the individual chase it is over. Obviously the fact that only one role can harm or kill the other, and the fact that role gains special powers and abilities to end the chase faster, means it is very asymmetrical and eventually all but the absolute best or luckiest survivors will go down. This seems unfair, but remember the game is asymmetrical and while one survivor is being chased, the others remaining can rescue one another, heal up, travel & explore the map, make progress on escaping, and so on.

What makes this interesting (and in my opinion crucial to the game's relevance and success in the genre since all other competitors have failed for one reason or another) is how binary and limiting this game design scheme seems at its surface. There isn't even a health bar or hit points like in other games. Hit once for injured, again for downed. This is a far cry from most multiplayer games; which tend to measure time to kill much faster and having more modifiers for weapon types, damage, abilities, etc. Fighting games grant a bar for damage that allows for small mistakes to build up via chip damage or comboing, Smash Bros has a percentage that increases knockback and vulnerability for a powerful finisher, PVP in an MMO would have a long time to kill based on various abilities, status effects, and split being single target unavoidable moves and area of effect damage that can be dodged, and so on. 

Even games with very lethal and realistic damage systems, like a Call of Duty or Counterstrike with rapid firing modern weapons, still grant the players hit points to allow them to take a certain amount of damage before dying. Effectively these games could be simplified to make it so simply getting shot with a bullet eliminates you, but slight differences in damage per time or locational damage to incentivize good aim and so forth creates its own environment for game design that's distinct.

check my fit

The (Other) Hit-Point Problem
One of the most common ways to create gameplay depth and player choice would be doing something that modifies your numerical abilities to a game. Something like attack and defense modifiers, or elemental resistances, and so on. This allows players to being to create playstyles or make decisions that increase the longevity and engagement of the game or system they are playing.

So imagine that Dead by Daylight was designed with Hit-Points in mind. The developers decide that the average Killer should knock survivors down in two hits, so they give survivors 100 Hit-Points, and have a Basic Attack do 50 damage. Simple. But now we have a problem. If the Killer wants to express themselves by increasing their damage, by perhaps finding a new piece of gear or equipping a perk or whatever, this has no actual effect on the gameplay, as it would still take two hits to down a survivor. Unless you manage to stack these upgrades until you literally got to double damage, in which case, the ability to single-hit a survivor would be such a significant change that the entire game would have to be built around this possibility. This also has a problem with stacking incomparable mechanics. 10% increased damage and 10% increased attack speed could be a comparable value in some games, but here it would be a stupid choice.

However, further problems arise in the fact that the reverse of this scenario is not true. If Survivors could say, equip armor that reduced damage slightly found around the map or spend just a few seconds healing themselves a little bit, even just by 1% would effectively mean you could get three health states instead of two, which is an incredibly powerful ability that is currently reserved in the game for very special circumstances. This leads to an inherent problem with game designing and balance; you can't have an equal option of 10% damage for Killer and 10% damage-reduction for Survivor because they wouldn't actually balance themselves out. If both players had it it would, but the core gameplay of DBD is very binary in this regard. This is why an MMO or tabletop game can have dumb shit like "+5% increased chance to hit" and it's meaningful, but in an action adventure or shooter game it really wouldn't make enough of a difference to be noticeable or important.

Of course, this is all predicated on the notion that DBD would ever have a Hit-Point system and no other changes where made along the way; which is clearly not the case. Maybe if the more damaged survivors got the slower they ran, or the more blood they left behind making them easier to track, or the weaker they are struggling while being carried the lower their Hit-Points went into the negatives when struck down, and so on could all increase the design-space of the concept. This isn't really a critique of a hypothetical system, it's to illustrate a concept behind game design and the natural consequences behind these systems that lead to specific design outcomes.

Dead by Daylight's Game Design is Pretty Good Actually
Despite this seeming limitation, Dead by Daylight has introduced a lot of mechanics that meaningfully play around this strict adherence to the chases. A few perks do obvious things, like granting speed boosts or the occasional Exposed status effect, letting survivors get knocked down in one hit; but this is always temporary or predicated on some kind of special perk or activation requirement to grant some kind of counterplay. However, what is more interesting is how many perks and powers play around this two-hits-to-down concept in meaningful ways.

The most obvious? In a 3d video game with a complex environment, the ability to damage survivors at range with a variety of different types of weapons or power is an obvious one. Because every Killer can attack up close with a basic attack, which are essentially unlimited and much harder to avoid by survivors most of the time; most powers result in different methods of ranged or area of effect attacks. Dead by Daylight has experimented with a lot of these, and almost all of them are just different enough to make them unique. You have a basic projectile that just does damage with limited ammo (Huntress), a faster projectile that pulls survivors close for an attack (Deathslinger), projectiles with a wind up and warning that hit through walls (Pyramid Head), a projectile that does no damage on its own but significantly slows survivors or gets you closer to them so they can be hit easier (Pinhead, Singularity, the new Houndmaster, etc.) All of these attacks essentially still require you to hit the survivor twice, but have a method to make it a little easier and faster and a way to prevent survivors from "looping" the Killer (running around obstacles in circles to make it take longer to down them).

While if every Killer was rigorously designed to require two hits to down a Survivor regardless of power or what they did, the design space is expanded to allow for more concepts. For instance; there are a few killers who can knock down survivors in one hit. They either have a chainsaw that needs to be revved up and aimed (and can be dodged), or the Killer requires a certain amount of set up, like stalking survivors from afar without chasing them or building up some kind of super meter. This concept creates a juicy design space where you are essentially off loading the time cost of an average chase with a much shorter chase IF You can land your skillshot or catch the survivor making a serious mistake. This concept also extends the opposite way; some Killers actually need three hits to down survivors with their powers, which would make them complete garbage in a vacuum, but the method or ability that allows them to do this carries with it another side effect, or depletes a valuable survivor resource. For example, instead of a straight shot projectile that deals a health state, the Unknown uses a grenade-launcher-spit-thing that causes survivors to become weakened. This status effect has no real effect on the survivors other then making them a little easier to see; but if they hit a weakened survivor with their explosion it will deal damage. So while it takes three hits to down survivors with this creature's power, the individual hits are easier to land, can hit multiple survivors at once, can shoot over walls or hit through thin obstacles, doesn't need to be reloaded at a locker and has a shorter cooldown, and so on.

While you can't make an attack do more damage or something, you can add other benefits. Most of the time when Killers get some kind of generic boost, it's usually increased lunge distance, which means they can hit around certain tiles or loops easier. Your cooldown after a successful attack can be reduced by several methods, and your attacks could inflict various status effects. The survivor side is the same; you can't easily make the survivors more stealthy beyond doing weird stuff like making them transparent or shrinking their model smaller, you can reduce their grunts of pain or scratch marks- which are methods of tracking. You could just increase survivor speed, but similar to the two-hit system having too many speed boosts or bonuses would ruin the predictability and importance of certain systems like looping and time-to-kill that's extremely important for this game. Some of the most broken times of this game were when survivors could stack various bonuses and buffs to become nearly uncatchable, and in a game where one killer has to chase down four survivors this quickly becomes a big problem, which is why such important things need to be carefully considered. The developers have been less and less willing to experiment with such things, granting smaller benefits like bonuses to non-objective actions like opening chests, totems, healing, and so forth instead of touching the much more central and precarious mechanics of the game. As a side note: I think tabletop games suffer from this issue too, not just in "D&Disms", but in the general sacred cows of the genre, like having set characters or a DM, mechanics based on pass-fail metrics, and so on.

Of course even with these tricks, eventually you begin to see overlaps and repeats. Killers are less individually unique in their abilities and powers and moreso the flavor and combination of abilities they have. After all, there is only so much you can do in a 3d environment built from the ground up to be static and with a very specific gameplay loop. But what can we learn from this?

Mechanical Breakpoints
Different games have different mechanical points or levers that cannot be adjusted or included in part of the game's milieu without it totally breaking the game. These are "breakpoints". The term is also interchangeable to a system or mechanic that meaningfully changes when enough pressure is applied to it; such as an RPG where you boost your damage to the point you can defeat an enemy in two hits instead of three. This became a bit messy halfway through writing it as trying to bridge these two concepts, but I think it'll work.

So what is a big mechanical breakpoint in a tabletop game? The examples given above do start it out. For example, an enemy monster with 7 Hit-Points automatically requires two 1d6 weapon hits to defeat regardless of how good your roll is. This could be considered a breakpoint, but given the number of damage, hit, morale rules, and so on I don't actually consider this the best example. Another could be spells; a spell effect as written either takes effect, or it doesn't, as per magic resistance rules. This one is tough because depending on the spell or magic effect, there is no easy way to "tone down" its effects to represent it being partially resisted or avoided and so on, and since published games tend to have one single rule/effect (since that's what the medium is primarily, the written word), it makes sense that the mechanics would be enforced to support what the text says since anything else requires too much arbitration on the part of the DM to do regularly.

But after much deliberation; do you know what the biggest mechanical breakpoint of a tabletop game actually is? It's actions, or turns. The action economy. This sounds a lot more obvious now that I'm typing it up, but being able to do more things in a round is a huge deal. If tabletop games were typically played between parties of 10 or more, like the oldest of oldschool gamers, then this would be less significant, but nowadays? It's a big deal. The typical part of 4-6 grant a huge importance to each turn. This is so important that even boss monsters, who are often outnumber by typical adventuring parties, are given special lair or legendary actions to try and even the playing field; even though the game designers can buff the stats of these monsters as much as they want. While this is a simplification, I think this is telling to the importance of turns.

The closest tabletop equivalent in video game format is usually the CRPG or, more accurately in my opinion, the humble JRPG. You can see this effect in action, as typically the player gets their biggest power spike when they get multiple party members. Even if the new party members are "bad", simply being there to hold aggro, use items, or allowing the party to retreat even after the "main" party members died is a huge advantage to avoiding a game over. In essence, it means that number of useful party actions is the biggest mechanical indicator of strength and balancing, as opposed to things like hit points or even chance of success. This is why tabletop is rife with +1 to Hit modifiers or health or whatnot are common, but there's basically never a "if you have enough Dexterity you get to make two actions a turn" sort of thing. It would be far and away better then any other choice.

So the question is; what do we do with this information? I think there are two ways to embrace this. Firstly, designing around this limitation. This is one of the reasons I never give players bonus attacks, even for fighters, except in very specific circumstances (you want to hit multiple enemies at once? there are rules for that already) I quite like the "one turn = one action" dichotomy. I think doing things like artificially shrinking the size of enemy forces and patrols to be closer to the party in size, or doing things like lumping multiple enemies together into a single mass (horde rules) is less disruptive then forcing party members to actually feel the sting of every single enemy attacking them while outnumbered. While this does mean your actions will be very specialized and specific, I think with the right mindset and design of the game it can be just as dramatic and fun. Like if you can only choose to attack, heal, or cast a spell; designing the game to make all of those equally big and impactful could be really fun. Just linear advancement of these abilities may seem boring, but another way to to design around this limitation is to rely on setups, bonuses, or other hand-in-hand modifiers.

In the above video game examples; a perk to break a pallet in DBD 10% faster is a nice thing to have. But that's because video games are real time, and saving a few portions of a second is noticeable and useful, but not gamebreaking on its own. Meanwhile, being able to do things faster in tabletop means either going first (it's an on or off, not granular) or making more actions overall (gamebreaking), so instead, we reverse this dichotomy. In our above theoretical tabletop system, we can't let ourselves do more actions, so we make our actions better. For example, instead of giving the fighter bonus attacks, we just make his attacks really strong, or pull a DCC and make the fighter do damage even on a miss. His action is still limited to one, but it always has some usefulness or is just far and away better then a normal action.

Another method is for setups between party members. You can't have two actions, but you can make somebody elses action way better. The problem with this is usually how its implemented. Wasting an action on buffing somebody else, or placing a minor debuff on an enemy, feels like a waste of your limited turn, so instead these need to be worked into the normal system. For example, if you attack an enemy, the next party member to attack that enemy gets a bonus to-hit based on your character's leadership skill or what not. Another idea is to tie multiple actions together. For example; a Cleric heals the party members with their spells, but gets to Bless them for free when they do so. This ability may come from a better spell or for free based on their level. While technically not giving them multiple actions, they can essentially accomplish multiple things at once but only in specific situations. While not at all equal to having multiple attacks, letting Fighter split up damage to multiple foes or get free autoattack counters on people just seems perfect for an "almost breaks the rules" sort of thing. If anybody should get it combat, it would be the Fighter.

The second way to embrace the action economy problem is to do away with it entirely. By reducing a single combat encounter or situation into one contested roll, or by using new forms of initiative or interaction. I've done this myself a few times; my current game features a low-magic dungeoneering party with many first time players. For their combat or trap encounters, I have them simply perform popcorn initiative, with whoever wishes to go may go and then the opponents get to go, or something happens in reaction to their action, and so on. This allows people to participate at their own pace, and doesn't force people to play if they don't want, but I make an effort to give everyone a chance to shine. This goes beyond the scope of this (very long) blogpost though; dealing with player psychology and table politics is already such a specific learned skill, your own experience would serve you better then anything I could recommend!

Random complaints about Magic Systems since this post was too long for r/magicbuilding

1) Magic is a purely genetic or "superpower"-like ability that is manifested wholly from the body/person using it.

For me, magic needs to have some component of spiritual or mental acuity to use it. I don't have a problem with magic being heavily tied to a person's bloodline, even if it's "unfair" in the world its in like if it's only available to superhuman elves or spirits or whatever, but magic where humans can just wave their hands and simply can do it or can't doesn't feel magical to me, it feels more like a superpower. You need to have some component of at least mentally imagining the spell or willing it into existence somehow. I also like to self insert in most fantasy worlds I read or interact with (don't we all) and I much prefer magic being the result of hard work or at least special knowledge.

2) Magic that mixes symbolic and pseudo-scientific aspects.

Regardless of if a magic system is soft or hard; I dislike when magic systems mix these two aspects. If you want to make magic the result of different varieties of magical or elemental energy that is collected in crystals to power magitech machinery, that's fine. If you want to make magic more folkloric and/or occult and base it on symbolic methods; like making a voodoo doll that looks like someone to harm them remotely or nailing an iron horseshoe to your doorway to keep fairies away that's fine too. But don't tell me there are mystic curses that can only be broken with true love's first kiss AND you're a red wizard with 250 MP practicing your 2nd level fireball spell.

3) Magic "Schools" or categories that have inconsistent naming conventions

This one is probably the worst and most nitpicky of all; but I very much dislike magic systems where they have a sort of order to their spell schools. White magic, black magic, gray magic; ok that's cool, don't suddenly add in "charms" or "illusion" magic to that list, it completely ruins it. Same as systems that will inexplicably have elemental magic and then throw in mind-control or psychic phenomena as a category. No, if you're going to have a category that breaks the rules like that, you need to fit it into the existent naming scheme like letting elemental magic also affect people's moods and body humors or start over. The worst part is its not even the effects or spells, just the naming scheme. I have zero problem with Elder Scrolls magic schools as they exist in the game but having every spell school follow this naming convention of "AlteraTION, DestrucTION, RestoraTION," and then tossing in "Mysticism" or "Illusion" irks me.

4) Magic incantations that don't mean anything

Now obviously they mean "something" in the world-space when spoken aloud, you can't expect every creator or author to create an entire conlang just for this, but what I mean by this is if a magic system uses magic incantations that inevitably boil down to saying things like "water, form, towards target" in word form I get annoyed. Once again this is often abstracted but if its a magic system based on words and "you can't lie in this ancient language so whatever you say has to become true" or it's "imposing your will on reality" via speech then what needs to be said needs to be intelligible. I've come to enjoy magic incantations just spoken in plain English/whatever language the story is written in as being more evocative anyway; calling upon supernatural forces or commanding inanimate objects to obey and they suddenly spring to life is so much better then some keywords in some made-up gibberish language.

5) Sorcerers = Inherited Magic & Wizards = Learned Magic

This is literally just an annoyance I have with the naming convention once again; and only D&D in specific. The most famous Sorcerers in pop culture and fiction (named Sorcerer)? King Solomon, Dr. Strange, and Mickey Mouse (Sorcerer's Apprentice)- All had to learn or gain their powers through magic items. The most famous Wizards in fiction? Merlin, Harry Potter, Gandalf- all inherited or belonging to a magical bloodline. Once again, this is 100% down to taste, I just hate how D&D has created this connotation when if anything it should be the opposite. At least "Witch" can always mean a hearth caster!

6) Everything "magic" comes from the "Wizard class"

Not literally video games again, but if everything magical or supernatural in a world has to come from a magic using catch-all term or type of individual; it sucks all the suspense and intrigue out of the world for me. Magic swords should be crafted by the most skilled and experienced blacksmiths of the land; not "enchanted" in some process by some magical wizard guy. Once again this is down to flavor, and more scientific magic systems get a pass on this by necessity, but everything cool being made by the special snowflake Wizard-type is boring to me.

7) Magic is defined as an energy field + real world physics on top

This was described by other comments on this post better; but basically I really hate when fantasy magic is defined as a sort of magical energy field that can be turned off or on, "Anti-Magic Shell", etc. These things suck all the mysticism and spiritual aspects out of magic. You can have magic be weaker in certain places, or certain materials be resistant to it, but this should be because of a great lodestone or fallen star that disrupts the subtle "weave" that surrounds all living things, NOT an attempt to crease over a soft magic system with a hard-magic system explanation.

8) We don't see enough of it / Only brought out for the "cool" moments

Final complaint; magic systems that don't let us get any fun stuff out of it. Yes, I know this sounds a bit hypocritical from some of the stuff above, but if I get invested in a world, story, or game; I really want to at least get a taste of the magic. If it's a Lovecraftian style magic world with great costs and dangers for using magic, I get it, but in an attempt to not spoil the flavor with overexposure, many creativities make magic too rare, special, or plot-important to actually absorb and enjoy. Let me see how magic users use magic to rid themselves of annoying daily tasks or how low-powered magic stuff is sometimes used for entertainment or to play pranks on people. Let me steep myself in the unreal world. People are people even if they're elves; so you KNOW somebody is going to use these fantastic powers for something boring, something mean, or something kinky. It's inevitable and, if anything, a sign of good writing. It's a part of the world, so let me experience it in your world.

In Defense of Race as Culture + 8 Universal Origins for People

Art @Su Jian

Often browsing internet forums or writing advice blogs, you will often hear the adage of "writing a fictional fantasy or sci-fi race with only one culture is bad writing", and this is true! Classics include Klingons, fantasy Dwarves, always-evil Orcs, and other such examples. The idea of an entire polity of intelligent beings, at least as smart or socialized as humans, yet not having even close to the same amount of diversity of cultures and ethnicities (or "races"; we're using the term race = species here as a colloquialism), does seem to raise some alarm bells and a lack of care for the detail and belivability of a fictional world.

The cause of this phenomena is talked about a lot, so I won't spend much time writing on it. Basically, everyone who writes these types of stories is a human, and humans are pretty much the only intelligent "race" of beings on our planet. As such, we see differences amongst ourselves much better then we do other living creatures. For example, most people couldn't tell the difference looking at an adult male or female tiger unless you put them right next to each other. The stripes, fur, hips, skull construction, everything is too similar unless you're some kind of zookeeper or something. Humans are designed to see differences in other humans, so we naturally gloss over the differences in a fictional nonhuman race. (One could argue this is actually genius level writing; portraying all members of a fantasy race as stereotypes is just the unreliable human narrator or the viewer own lens ignorant of the deep culture differences between deciduous forest elves and conifer-elves, but we're not gonna go there.)

Secondly, the overhead of writers and authors to create (and audiences to consume) is too much for a full human-level of detail and breakdown for different fantasy races with their own cultures and history. There is only so much room in a game or book or show or whatever else to dedicate to such extraneous fluff. As such, they are simplified. This creates a sense of "fakeness" and one-dimensionality to these fantasy races, making them walking stereotypes. Surely, the elves would have their own many factions and cultures. They can't all be tree dwelling, bow using, magical immortals with a penchant for sneering at younger races, right? Is having an entire race of ultra-capitalists in a sprawling sci-fi setting creating a less believable world, no matter how well developed they actually are? 

I think with the bottom-to-top worldbuilding design of creating and explaining every little detail of a world, yes, I think having fantasy races as monocultures is a bit lazy and could veer into bad writing. But in my opinion? Monolithic and one-dimensional races are not bad at all. This is because they are not representative of an actual fantasy race of people but, instead, are essentially the fantastical, exaggerated fantasy versions of real-life heritage and diversity.

Art @Timbukdrew (these are my favorite troglodytes ever btw)

Humans are Not a Race
Perhaps because of playing so many non-human characters, imagining settings with them, or generally consuming media with a smattering of different fantasy races I personally don't find myself with some special connection to fellow humans as portrayed in fantasy worlds. Instead, I just think of intelligent beings in fantasy as just being some vague kind of people. It also helps if we don't use the label of "human" for one or more fantasy races. One good example would be the Elder Scrolls or Lord of the Rings; while they may be "Men", the differences between them are still significant. After all, Hobbits are a race of men too, despite them being wayyyy different from the other "humans" in Tolkien's works, both physically and culturally (mentally?).

In the real world, different human genetic traits evolved due to evolutionary and selective (cultural) pressures. While this topic is obviously contentious, it is in inarguable fact of biology. It cannot be denied without a creationist argument. Even so, I still very strongly feel that the genetic difference between two of the most distant human groups still capable of interbreeding is still probably less then the differences then a Nord and a Breton, or a High Elf and a Dark Elf. They're still the same race, but the differences between them are exaggerated, made fantastical, more apparent to highlight the differences and potential gameplay impacts (which is the only thing anybody actually cares about) that your choice of character race will have on your playthrough.

Of course, "genetic distance" and DNA and shit doesn't exist in fantasy anyway. It's a misnomer. They exist but only as vague concepts that direct how the author and audience expect things to work unless something "else" is going on in the fantasy world. In the real world, somebody can't be half animal, because the genetics don't work like that. But in a fantasy world? Someone can be half horse or half bull or whatever, and potentially pass that trait on. Somebody can also just be touched by supernatural spirits, or be part of a cursed bloodline, or whatever else the author makes up. While logically or "realistically" orcs and elves and humans can't be part of the same species, they can still occupy that space thematically.

Imagine you are traveling along a road in medieval times. After a long enough walk, two villages could have totally different dialects, totally different industries and ways of living, different food and dress, different cultures and customs, and they may even look just a little bit different physically too. These differences are minor, scaling with distance traveled. In a fantasy world? It's the same, except exaggerated. Made fantastical and unreal by the creator and the reader, so much so that the next village over is not run by humans, but little badgers living in little holes under the ground. They aren't literally the same species under a complex set of genetic rules and cultural histories creating these differences; but instead a way to make that pop and become something that inspires awe and intrigue. This is why I don't mind when a fantasy race is boring or one-dimensional. They're only one-dimensional when compared to the real world, but in the fantasy world? They make up part of the tapestry.

Also to improve this rambling post a bit; a random table you can roll on to worldbuild where all your different fantasy races are actually all from the same place and we should like not fight in race wars in stuff because we're all really the same and stuff.

Universal Origins - Roll 1d8
[1] The Gods each made their own race out of the same special clay. Each is molded to look different and do different things, but in the end, they're all from the womb of the earth. Mortals can do this too, but only a fraction of their power; this is where golems come from.

[2] All of the races were uplifted are from different animals, which came first, and were magically transformed into Man-Shape. Orcs are pigs, elves from foxes, dwarves from goats, humans from flightless birds and so on. What about animal people? They were the first drafts, which is why those races are more bestial and less developed; cast aside as failed experiments.

[3] Do the Goblin Punch thing where all the races are uplifted genetic castes made for specific purposes by a precursor race. But don't make the precursors "true" Elves or some super powerful aliens; make it gnomes. Every time there is a secret plot or evil conspiracy, it's always the fucking gnomes.

[4] The first being in the world had many offspring that it split off from itself to admire creation. These beings are all just pieces of the whole. The eyes of the Elves, the arms and hands of the Dwarves, the horns of the Oni; all pieces of the true being. When the players finally arrange all the pieces together and zap it with lightning to bring it to life, it actually looks really horrific and it's basically a Lovecraftian monster that is their progenitor; not some creature of great beauty and grace.

[5] The world was actually a trial for souls, one representing each race, to overcome adversity and purify themselves to ascend into heaven to sit besides the Throne of God. Each one of these heroes was given a form that representing their emotional state and greatest faults they had to overcome. The Elf was a soul in love with nature and peace, needing to learn how to be practical. The Orc had a fiery temper and had to learn patience, and so on. The problem? The trial is over, they're all gone. It was made for individuals, and their offspring and families were just left behind later. Those ancient ancestral heroes are all chilling in heaven and don't really care about you anymore. You're just the leftovers.

[6] Each race is really from another demiplane that was once perfect for them. Endless rolling green hills for the halflings, toxic swamps with much prey for the lizardfolk, and so on. Eventually, the demiplanes fused together with cosmic planar gravity; the world is its accretion disc. Racism and stuff happens because you kinda weren't meant to ever exist together, so it's hard to adapt. Don't get mad when demons and freaky outsiders try to open portals to your dimension; they're just trying to join in with everyone else.

[7] When God made the world in all its complexity and design he took all the souls of all the people who would ever be born and asked them what they wanted to be and when all of them said they wanted to be kings and beautiful creatures and all powerful he got mad and just mixed them up in a pot and just spilled them out so that's why you're short and stubby and eat your damn mushroom soup.

[8] We all actually "evolved" over a "billions of years" from a single extremely simple creature called a "single celled organism". Scholars laugh at this nonsense; point to the statues of their Gods which look exactly like them. It just makes more sense.

I hate the Technocracy (MAGE WoD)

I can never talk about World of Darkness shit because I'm always afraid I'll get it wrong. It's such an old series of games and books, with multiple changed editions, some with totally different lore. I'm too casual for it. My World of Darkness experience is limited to a few games of vampire, one Hunter, a shitty play-by-post RP Forum game set in the setting but with none of the rules, reading the wikis, and pirated .pdfs. As such, I feel I can never speak with any authority on the subject, as I'm 100% sure my ideas about the setting are either headcanon confused as real stuff, other people's headcanon, or just flat out misremembered stuff I read from years ago. However, that doesn't stop me from really enjoying the implied setting, spitballing new ideas, and seeing what people make of it. No matter how much I read about WoD there always seems to be more.

But time and time again, something about MAGE really bothers me. MAGE in particular I feel like is the weakest and most contentious bit of the WoD, and is widely considered one of the hardest games to both run and play in, despite WRAITH having every player needing to play both their own character and a foil shadow to another character too. The Storyteller is just so loaded down in MAGE. I don't think this is a contentious opinion; I also frequented a roleplaying site for multiple years where a single dedicated GM continually tried recruiting for his WoD Mage game, in a place where people's games would usually fill up quite fast. I admire the dedication. But MAGE in particular bugs me.

I think the main issue with MAGE in terms of its universal appeal is its trying to be too broad and all-encompassing in scope. You're taking this core idea of "reality is what you make of it" or "reality is consensus", which works great for a highly focused piece of work like Unknown Armies, another favorite game/setting of mine, BUT you're also trying to tie it into the mythology and "monster"-fantasy of being a Witch or Wizard. I feel like you're creating an innate problem here. Vampire works great because you get what you say on the tin, you're a vampire. The game encompasses a massive amount of vampire mythology, and even encompasses some creatures that aren't traditional vampires yet all of them can safely fit into its mythology. It's scope is simple enough to understand and becomes a creative tool; restriction breeds creativity and all. But MAGE is basically anything you want as a magic user; no unifying themes other then the core rules of Spheres of power. Lip service to Ars Magica, but none of the actual grounding in Medieval Europe to tie it all together. It's trying to fit the fantasy of being Harry Potter, Sabrina the Teenage Witch, the Wizards of Waverly Place, Wizards101, Charmed, Wanted, and all that other shit together in one unified splat. I just think it's flawed. I personally think it would have been much better if it was just trying to be one of those; just let me play a Teenager Wizard trying to keep their powers a secret or else they'll get their powers taken away by the evil wizard police or whatever. Normie opinion? Fine.

But I get why people like MAGE. You can basically create anything you want and fit it into the rules; a conspiracy theorist seeing numerology in the stock market manipulating reality, a Wicca with some punch behind her practices, the kids from Chronicle and that one X-Files episode, and it all kinda just works. For those who like it, I can't OBJECTIVELY say it's bad, I just think it suffers from trying to be too philosophical. But you know what part of MAGE I can say is objectively bad? The Technocracy.

The Technocracy in Lore
I have read two version of MAGE. I don't remember which is which and I don't care to do so, just know I've seen both the oWoD and nWoD versions. To explain my limited knowledge of this topic, I will reiterate my understanding.

In the first (older?) WoD splat, the world is in a fallen state. Achieving enlightenment was once possible, but the ladder to climb to reach it was kicked down by those above; the Supernal world is the philosophical and power end-goal of all Mages in this edition of the splat. The Technocracy is another faction, even one allied with the standard Mages of this edition, using super science and technology as their form of "magic" in this world. They're still breaking the rules, but to the sleepers and unawakened, it's a slightly easier sell. Essentially, they're like those spy gadgets in movies. Nothing overtly supernatural is happening, but they're still working magic, as objective reality doesn't allow what they're doing in the strictest sense. It's an interesting potential faction in a game like this which is very gnostic in its theme (as if I haven't talked about that enough on this blog), but I personally dislike it due to the theme of "magic magic is real" which is supposed to induate the rest of the splat.

Then? The second splat. This one has the technocracy being its own faction, one of several compared to the Order of Hermes (the good guys), Marauders (crazy mages) and Nephandi (the actual bad guys). Here the technocracy are like the Agent Smith's of this splat, helping to keep down the reality threats in a world that should, in most cases, side with them. Reality is built on consensus and in the modern world, with religion all but dead and science and rationality being so strongly held in belief with normal people that the technocracy are all but indomitable. Then, they have Extraordinary Citizens who are basically the magictek science-driven form of Sorcerers. Both editions of MAGE mention this Extraordinary Citizen concept by this name.

And it is some of the worst, most tone-deaf shit I have ever read in my life.

The Core Problem
The entire point of World of Darkness is that the world is dark. Not necessarily grimdark, but depressing and always a bit sad, always a bit degraded. Every single splat of WoD, no matter what it is, has a very strong theme of loss and slow decay or degradation over time.

Vampires slowly lose their humanity. Werewolves gain too much rage and become animals. Changelings gain banality and eventually forget they were ever fairies- their enchanted existence becomes mundane and boring. This last one is really important. Mage has its own morality/essence mechanic in the form of Quiet. This isn't the issue to me, the issue here is tone and theme.

The entire concept behind Mage is that the world is what we make of it. Human belief and superstition changes what is objective and real. Magic in the WoD is rare and precious because... most people don't believe in magic. Mages are constantly fighting an uphill battle to create magic because they're fighting their own version of banality, but in this case, it's objective scientific fact. Education, capitalism, and communication have eliminated so much of the folk traditions and beliefs that magic is becoming almost impossible to achieve- at least effects that look especially unreal and impossible. This is true even though belief is supposed to be localized and fluid; even in the middle of the woods around none of the sleepers making something levitate by itself is difficult because the stink of "what comes up must come down" is so strong that it even happens even when no-one is looking. This is supposed to be the aspect of MAGE that is sad, that is dark, that is your uphill battle. That human achievement is limited by what we think is possible, that people accused of crimes can't actually be innocent because nobody gets accused without a good reason, or that "everyone is out for themselves" being a belief so ingrained that it becomes part of reality. This concept is even directly stated in the Nephandi book, for fallen sorcerers, who are actively trying to make the world a worse place by spreading these ideas and misery into the world. So what is the Technocracy doing with special divisions, intentional conspiracies nobody can breach into, and extraordinary citizens? I hate this concept. 

The Technocracy doesn't need any of this shit, because the Technocracy already won. In the battle for reality, the boring, safe, practical minds already infected themselves into every single person on Earth, crushing down the once beautiful systems of belief and being and magic that was once possible in every human soul, now most of which are asleep, going through the motions of what is expected of them. They only care about contributing to society; making money and living in a family, because the thought they could be out having epic adventures or exploring realms beyond Earth or slaying dragons and creatures of the night is childish, impossible, and out of their comfort zone of reality. This is supposed to be what MAGE is about, but the entire concept is completely ruined by the Technocracy as some entity.

So for me; the Technocracy still exists in MAGE, but it is faceless. There are no extraordinary citizens. There are no secret gadgets or conspiracy. Those who teach and learn the scientific method, and who crush the human soul out of the real world by asking you to point it out on their anatomy chart, are just as dangerous and diabolical as the Marauders; not asking for consent as they change the reality around you to their own twisted song. But for the Technocrats, it's worse. They are the middle managers of the gray eternity, perhaps even destined to turn humans into nothing but the intelligent primates they evolved from. How do you know we evolved from primates? Because they dug up a skeleton and all the DNA they discovered pointed to it. Why are there fossils? Why is there DNA? Why did humans evolve at all? Because they believe it so, and every time they're being proven right. "That is true" is the most common, endlessly repeated, and all-powerful magic spell. And that is why they are winning; not just today, but in the past too. Retroactively changing the mythical past of humanity into just myths and dreams and revisions of history, because those things "just aren't possible".

This, to me, is what makes the Technocracy scary; not a neat little list of special "divisions" that are basically just the orders of Mages but with different names. I have always imagined this to be the true enemy of the awakened ones in the WoD; something faceless and impossible to reason with, something infecting every corner of the globe and every human mind with the crushing endless repetition of "TRUTH", unassailable in all ways, as impossible to snuff out as knowledge and as eternal as the concept of a state. It's the one world order of the reasonable, the cautious, spreading by industry and information itself. That is what the Technocracy should be.