Okay, I am relatively new to SR3 and something has me stumped. Elves and trolls use Priority C while dwarves and orks use Priority D. Or, if you prefer the point-based system in SRComp, elves and trolls cost 10 while dwarves and orks cost 5.

(Now, before I go further, let me insert a disclaimer - I am not allowing for any sort of social or role-playing benefit of this or that race, because that will vary from game to game. Some groups play in a way that makes elves very valuable, while others spend half the game smuggling between the Ork Underground and Cascade Ork lands. So, please ignore any non-game-mechanic factors for a moment . . .)

Let's compare the racial modifications:

Dwarf - +1 Body, +2 Strength, +1 Willpower (net +4), thermographic vision, resistance (+2 dice) for any test to resist a disease or toxin

Elf - +1 Quickness, +2 Charisma (net +3), low-light vision

Ork - +3 Body, +2 Strength, -1 Charisma, -1 Intelligence (net +3), low-light vision

Troll - +5 Body, -1 Quickness, +4 Strength, -2 Intelligence, -2 Charisma (net +4), thermographic vision, +1 natural reach, +1 natural dermal armor

As I see it, in terms of game mechanics, elves and orks are virtually identical - both have a net +3 and low-light vision.

Dwarves and trolls are also nearly identical - both have a net +4, thermographic vision, and two other bonuses. They also both suffer the "wrong-sized-world" problem.

Why then, do dwarves cost less than elves?! By the numbers, dwarves are a bargain, and elves are a raw deal. It would seem that dwarves and trolls should be Priority C / cost 10, and elves and orks should be Priority D / cost 5.

(As a reminder, I'm not talking about role-playing issues that will vary from group to group.)

I asked my GM this question, and he replied that it was based on the races' prevalence in the population. That explanation stands up well when comparing orks and trolls (there are a LOT more orks), but does not hold up when comparing elves and dwarves - elves are more common by percentage of population in almost every location in my collection of sourcebooks, including New Seattle and Shadows of North America. Thus, I don't buy the prevalence argument.

So, why the disparity? Why do the high-benefit dwarves cost less than the low-benefit elves? Does anything in canon or company material explain this? (Perhaps in a previous version of SR?) It seems grossly illogical to me, and if I were to run a campaign, I would switch dwarves and elves in the Priority listing / point-based cost table.

What do you think?

I'm all for making it an even 5 points/category D across the board. Sure Trolls are big and strong, but the size and social issues keep them from dominating. I'm not sure why Elves would be twice as expensive to play as Dwarves except that maybe the SR team wants to discourage playing elves.

You have to take several things into account, not just number chunching.

Elves are looked at as the favored race, being that they get the least about of social problems.

Also, dwarves have a running multiplier of 2, which is a big draw back.

If you were going to chance anything, I would make them all cost the same, as they balance out in the end.

Don't forget that dwarves have that x2 run multiplier. Which is actually a lot bigger deal than it sounds.

Take into account cost of stuff too. Dwarves and Trolls have to double the cost of armor, clothes, etc due to their nasty size negative.

I forgot about the running multiplier - that's a really good point.

I don't think elves' social position is a factor - there are elves living in the Barrens, and the Tir ain't what it used to be.

Now, making them all cost the same has some potential. More accurately, making them all the same Priority has some potential. As far as point-based costs go, I still think I would make trolls pricier than the others. Maybe trolls 10, dwarves 8 (running multiplier), elves 6 (social benefit, if any), orks 4 (social drawback, if any). That is also approximately the reverse order of prevalence, going back to my GM's suggestion . . .

One other valid point - elves are mildly better than orks, not for social reasons, but because they have no penalties in that net +3.

There's already been a lengthy flamewar on this topic.

~J

Good Lord, 25 pages! Quick - somebody lock this thread!

See what you started......all over again, chodav.....

I agree that the run mod is the biggest downside on dwarves is thier run mod. And, by cannon, the most commonly prejudiced-against race is orks (I don't remember where it says this, but I remember them pointing out that there are simply more orks to hate than Trolls.

I think as they are, ultimately, they encourage (at least in my experience) a rough game balance of the %'s that are supposed to exist in Seattle.

lock the thread? why? do you think it's stupid? are you calling me stupid!?

numbers-wise, i don't think it's really possible to justify the point cost of dwarves. for the price, they really are the shiznat. in most games, though, they're still fairly uncommon (sphynx's mileage may vary!); i guess most people just don't want to be short.

well the cost of gear might be a factor in the low dwarf usage, even trolls for that matter.

My Elf conjuring adept has a rating 4 ally spirit (which he has sex with), an Ares slivergun, and a spell defense pool of 5.

Thanks for sharing, bearclaw.

Sharing what? That he role-plays sex? Geez, I'm married, have two kids, and just plain don't get any anymore, and I don't stoop that low . . .

I think you mean silvergun.

~J

No, he quite definitely means Silvergun. The fact that he's having sex with his ally spirit removes any doubt

~J

If anything, under the Build Point System, all metahumans should be cranked up to 10 points instead of 5. The fact that they all grant between 3-4 (6-8 build points) bonus Attribute Points gives them too much of an advantage to be worth only 5 build points. Especially elves who have *no* significant downfalls outside of racism.

What the Doc said. If you really look at elves, you have 3 bonus points added to your Attributes (+6), the equivalent of Exceptional Attribute taken 3 times (+6), Low-Light Vision (equivalent to the 2-point Edge), and the equivalent of the Bad Karma Flaw since you earn Karma Pool at half the rate of a human. That's 9 points, and I think it's easily worth 1 extra point beyond the raw point cost, just to be able to start out with 3 net Attribute points more than a human (who is limited to 30 Attribute points, as opposed to an elf who can effectively start out with 33 Attribute points), some of them in very key areas (elves make great full mages or speed samurai).

Now, I could see the point of increasing the cost for a dwarf, but keep in mind that dwarves not only suffer a penalty to running, but also suffer TN penalties whenever they use a weapon or vehicle that is not specifically modified for their use. Also, their Attribute bonuses are less suited to specific roles - for example, you can make a good dwarven sorcerer, but are stuck with at least a 3 for Strength. All in all, I think the various races are fairly balanced.

The beauty of the point system, though, is that individual GMs can tweak it to their own personal ideal of game balance by changing the point cost for things like race, magic, or resources.

Hrm, I wonder, has anyone run or been in a campaign where your race is decided randomly at the start?

You could figure out where the character was born, and then figure out the pecent of the population by race of that area and roll randomly to see which race you got. It'd make things interesting, I think.

Ah well, back to work.
-fr

Ugh. Randomness for character generation is best left in systems like D&D, thank you.