Seeking Input for RPG

[Topher]

I'm currently working on a fantasy RPG that includes anthropomorphic characters. It includes classic fantasy races (human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-orc), as well as anthropomorphic characters based on literally every existing tetrapod, except birds and flying mammals, which I'm saving for a future supplement, because I don't want to figure out the game mechanics for flight yet. I wanted to get some input from fellow furries on a few things.

1) In the game, I'm using the term "beastkin" for anthropomorphic characters. I have beastkin divided into "clans" of similar beastkin, like the Cat Clan and the Dog Clan, and the "kin" terminology works well because I can use the same suffix to refer to a specific clan, like catkin, or even a specific race, like leopardkin. Also, kin can be singular or plural, depending on context, so it's versatile. So my first question is how do you feel about the "kin" terminology to refer to anthropomorphic characters? If you don't like it, Is there some other terminology that you prefer?

2) I wanted a better term for a beastkin's base animal besides "base animal," which could also be used in-game by the actual characters. I decided to use "nagaul," which is basically a word for a shapeshifter, taken from Mesoamerican folk religion, which incorporates the idea that everyone has a unique spirit animal, since each nagual could only shift into their unique spirit animal, and no other type. Granted, beastkin don't shift, but they do have a transitional form between a human and their base animal, so it seems appropriate, plus I just think nagual has a nice ring to it. So what do you guys think, do you like nagual? If not, is there an alternate word you'd recommend for a beastkin's base animal?

3) I currently describe beastkin as generally having three fingers and a thumb on each hand, with claws or small hooves on each finger instead of fingernails, since this is how they're often portrayed in art. Realistically, in a game with regular humanoids like humans and dwarves who have true fingers, with four fingers and a thumb, the humanoids (and certain beastkin based on primates) should have better manual dexterity than beastkin, who have less fingers and awkward claws or hooves on their fingers. Rather than penalize the beastkin, I give the humanoids a +1 bonus with any task involving fine manipulation, like forgery or pickpocketing. Question 1: What do you think of making beastkin's default hands have three clawed or hooved fingers and a similar thumb? If you don't like it, what alternative would you suggest?

4) I'm giving all the beastkin internal anatomy that's basically human. So they're all warm-blooded and have placental reproduction, even beastkin based on cold-blooded animals like turtles or frogs. So beastkin based on reptiles and egg-laying mammals don't lay eggs; they get pregnant and have babies. Similarly, marsupialkin don't have tiny babies that have to live in their pouch for a while to survive; they get pregnant and have regular, full-sized babies, just like humans. I do let marsupialkin keep the pouches, but they're just for convenient storage, not raising babies, which means I let the male marsupialkin have them, too. What are your thoughts and comments on this? I'm especially interested in what people think about male marsupialkin having pouches. (Let me know if your fursona is actually based on a marsupial, as I think your opinion on this particular issue holds a little more weight.)

Thank you for your feedback,

Topher

 

[Yastreb]

Regarding 3, it sounds like all the beastkin are getting the same stats regardless of species. I think it would make more sense if their capabilities reflected in some way the base animal. A naturally dextrous species like (ahem) raccoons would get a bonus to fine manipulation, and so on.

I don't have a strong opinion on the reproductive systems, but in general I prefer biologically accurate anthros. Do you intend to give each species realistic senses, diet, and special abilities/weaknesses, or are you going to replace those with human (or at least identical) traits?

 

[Marius Merganser]

I'm currently working on a fantasy RPG that includes anthropomorphic characters. It includes classic fantasy races (human, dwarf, elf, gnome, halfling, half-orc), as well as anthropomorphic characters based on literally every existing tetrapod, except birds and flying mammals, which I'm saving for a future supplement, because I don't want to figure out the game mechanics for flight yet. I wanted to get some input from fellow furries on a few things.

Oh fun!
I have been developing a world of my own for the last few years, but it's just an adaptation of DnD and the only sentient beings are anthro.
(No dwarves, elves, humans, etc)

1) In the game, I'm using the term "beastkin" for anthropomorphic characters. I have beastkin divided into "clans" of similar beastkin, like the Cat Clan and the Dog Clan, and the "kin" terminology works well because I can use the same suffix to refer to a specific clan, like catkin, or even a specific race, like leopardkin. Also, kin can be singular or plural, depending on context, so it's versatile. So my first question is how do you feel about the "kin" terminology to refer to anthropomorphic characters? If you don't like it, Is there some other terminology that you prefer?

The good thing about using the kin suffix s that everyone is going to know what you're talking about without any familiarity of the game. I see "folk" is also commonly used. There's no ambiguity with Rabbit-Kin or Lizard-Folk. I think it's good to use these terms out-of-game, when discussing game mechanics.

I love referencing other properties, so in my world, the rodents use Raki (from Warhammer), and there's a group of rabbits that live on the sea called the Hlessi (from Watership Down). I think it gives the world more flavor, but you have to go out of your way to introduce the terms since players aren't likely to recognize the terms. I usually reserve specific names for more prominent species and use the terms in-game to build lore.

I'll use the Latin names for other races such as Vulpine for foxes. Birds are collectively Avian, though the unique families may go with the folk suffix, like owl-folk and then drill down to specific species that just use real world common names like snowy owl.

2) I wanted a better term for a beastkin's base animal besides "base animal," which could also be used in-game by the actual characters. I decided to use "nagaul," which is basically a word for a shapeshifter, taken from Mesoamerican folk religion, which incorporates the idea that everyone has a unique spirit animal, since each nagual could only shift into their unique spirit animal, and no other type. Granted, beastkin don't shift, but they do have a transitional form between a human and their base animal, so it seems appropriate, plus I just think nagual has a nice ring to it. So what do you guys think, do you like nagual? If not, is there an alternate word you'd recommend for a beastkin's base animal?

I don't think most people will be familiar with the term, so the potential for confusing an animal type with shapeshifting is extremely low. I think it's fine.

3) I currently describe beastkin as generally having three fingers and a thumb on each hand, with claws or small hooves on each finger instead of fingernails, since this is how they're often portrayed in art. Realistically, in a game with regular humanoids like humans and dwarves who have true fingers, with four fingers and a thumb, the humanoids (and certain beastkin based on primates) should have better manual dexterity than beastkin, who have less fingers and awkward claws or hooves on their fingers. Rather than penalize the beastkin, I give the humanoids a +1 bonus with any task involving fine manipulation, like forgery or pickpocketing. Question 1: What do you think of making beastkin's default hands have three clawed or hooved fingers and a similar thumb? If you don't like it, what alternative would you suggest?

If the four fingered species have the same tech level as the five fingers, I don't think it's necessary to give a bonus. Presumably they've adapted to use 4 fingers and can do the same tasks, but maybe in another way. But I do like that you prefer to give a bonus to one instead of a penalty to the other. Varying digits is fine. I leave the specifics of character design up to the players, so avians might have wing-hands and feather fingers, or proper arms with claws and angel wings on their backs. It doesn't affect the mechanics.

4) I'm giving all the beastkin internal anatomy that's basically human. So they're all warm-blooded and have placental reproduction, even beastkin based on cold-blooded animals like turtles or frogs. So beastkin based on reptiles and egg-laying mammals don't lay eggs; they get pregnant and have babies. Similarly, marsupialkin don't have tiny babies that have to live in their pouch for a while to survive; they get pregnant and have regular, full-sized babies, just like humans. I do let marsupialkin keep the pouches, but they're just for convenient storage, not raising babies, which means I let the male marsupialkin have them, too. What are your thoughts and comments on this? I'm especially interested in what people think about male marsupialkin having pouches. (Let me know if your fursona is actually based on a marsupial, as I think your opinion on this particular issue holds a little more weight.)

I think it would be hard to justify any argument that says, no, not allowed when you're already customizing biology. I don't think there's any reason males couldn't have pouch too. (Just like the variation in avian wings mentioned above).

(Also, since you mentioned it above, I just thought I'd add avians in my world cannot fly naturally due to physics and biology, but they get a bonus to movement when using the fly spell and they naturally have the equivalent of feather fall which reduces falling damage.)