litphoria

You bring up a fair point, and while we're not sure yet about an "Other" species, it's possible we could let people stop at step 1 or pick an "Other" in step 2. It would be in their and our interests to suggest (in the UI) that they also propose what the missing thing would be to feedback.

Definitely finding something isn't an issue, though the enormous quantity of options will be. The interface dumps a load of unfiltered options into your lap to pick from, many of which won't even be relevant, and every new species option increases the size of the whole list. Having you first pick a category in step 1 would filter the list down to options that would plausibly be relevant to you first.

That's not what I meant. If you play a Neko, you cannot choose Neko as a species, because it's not in the list. So you have to read the whole list to check for alternatives and have to choose between human, demihuman and feline. Demihuman is the logic choice, the description even mentions "kemonomimi" as an example. Or you choose feline to combine with the kemonomimi body type - in case you are aware there is a kemonomimi body type. An "Other" species wouldn't solve the problem, since you wont choose "Other" if you pay a Neko.

If you choose the correct filter. If I play a shark and look at Animal but the shark is listed at Aquatic I wont find it. And where would you put extraterrestrial for example?

Whoops, Aquatic wasn't meant to be there still. I decided partway through drafting this that it should be in Animal instead, due to lots of potential confusion - the same way Lizards are still in animal.

I share your concerns with Extraterrestrial/Alien. I mentioned that above - I've italicised those words so they'll stand out. I also share your concerns regarding Kemonomimi being in an awkward situation, and recognise you've brought up a couple of suggestions around resolving that. I've mentioned something about that above. I'd appreciate your suggestion about either of those things.

For things genuinely not in the list: you pick Other. Because they're not there. Or you just stop at step 1, and that's your "other". If you're playing something and don't see your option in its logical place on the list, I think you would pick other. (Why wouldn't a neko choose it?)

Because neko is a popular species, so it's unlikely I wouldn't find something better than "other". If I play Jabba the Hutt, I'd possibly choose "other".

I think a problem is that "Species: animal,bear" has no additional information. I know that a bear is an animal. Perhaps it would be an interesting option to use the "Species 1" to greatly increase the number of species.

Species 1: Human, Demihuman, Animal

Species 2 Human: European, Asian, African, Indian, Hawaiian

Species 2 Demihuman: Elf, Orc, Dwarf, Vulcan, Succubus

Species 2 Animal: Cat, Fox, Dog

Insect, Spider, Robot are not so useful, because the list would be quite short. Insects and Spiders are animals. Robots belong to the group which has no certain physical shape. Gods, Demons, Zombies, Robots, Extraterrestials, Golems.

The intention on listing Animal as well as Bear is to remind you that it's also a valid alias you can search by. In some less clear circumstances where one doesn't understand the step 2 name, they'll probably appreciate being told that whatever it is is a Demihuman or an Animal or whatnot.

Your outline there is right along the lines of what I'm thinking, including that option to use Human step 2 to provide ethnicities. I am keen on getting insects and spiders segregated from animals somehow, but maybe it'll just work better if they're together after all.

You're right that Robot, Extraterrestrial and Golems have no physical shape - anything within the great big list of species can be any of those. I suppose that means it definitely needs to be somewhere other than step 1 or 2. It seems to be in the vicinity of supernatural nature but seems unsatisfying to put it there, hence a step 3 being on my mind that collects options like that.

I am not sure about the less clear circumstances, if it's unclear if a trait means an animal or a demihuman, the name is probably not good. Supernatural nature is not my favorite trait, especially since it was "disimproved" from supernatural ability to contain creatures without supernatural abilities. I am not sure if cat-demons or robot-dogs are so common, that it is even worth to have a trait to make such combinations possible. Robots are not even supernatural. There are now three species-traits, one for species with no certain physical shape, one for species with a certain physical shape and species for both. That's why I am a bit skeptical about adding a fourth species trait.

Reading a profile is already like solving a puzzle now. I hope it's OK to link this profile: kirara (litphoria.com). Just saw it by chance. It's a Canine-Kemonomimi with species Demihuman and body type Kemonomimi. If I search for canines it wont show up.

With the forth species trait (Species 1) then it would be a Demihuman-Demihuman-Kemonomimi. If I correctly choose Demihuman (species 1) for my Neko-character, feline wont even show up. The idea with the two-step species selection is very good, but if it's put on top of the already existing three species-traits it probably wont work very good.

This won't be a fourth species trait - it's the same species trait we already have, just altering the same one we've always had. (This all happens within one trait. It doesn't behave like traits regularly do.)

Yes, kemonomimi stuff is confusing, but I'm not sure where you're getting "demihuman-demihuman-kemonomimi" from. (It'd just be demihuman - kemonomimi, once.) You bringing that up though has prompted me to just open a general dialog and call to action on the matter: help what can we do with the tangle of traits that say what kind of thing you are (litphoria.com). You might like to contribute there.

Well, you wrote: "I suggest we break up species into two steps (which may be represented with two traits". So if species becomes two traits, then there are four species-traits. You wrote that animal shall be a searchable alias. How does this work, if animal, bear is just one trait, can the search find traits who have animal in the name?

In full I wrote:

Instead of confronting all users with all options, I suggest we break up species into two steps (which may be represented with two traits, or just the one trait, and is either way something entirely new):

I forgot I wrote that, but the version I wrote out is intended as just the one trait with multiple selection steps. I'll edit to clarify.

How does this work, if animal, bear is just one trait, can the search find traits who have animal in the name?

"Animal" and "bear" would be two separate category choices stuck under one trait. You're an animal, and you're a bear. You're not considered to have made one choice called animal, bear, and this doesn't involve search doing partial word matches. That is a new way of doing things that is not something we have yet under any trait. This is why I said it might be represented by two traits (which would still be new, because your choice in the second trait is constrained by your choice in the first).

I went further in redo the what are you traits from another angle (litphoria.com), which is a version that involves strictly only one trait covering your species or body or whatever we might call it.

"Animal" and "bear" would be two separate category choices stuck under one trait.

How are they seperated? I have problems to understand this. There are two lists you choose from and those choices create a single category? Like when I choose Cat and Kemonomimi and the result will be Neko?

The two step factor would give more variety than we have currently, as well as make searching easier. If you are looking for animals currently, you have to look through each individual animal tag if you're not picky, with two step you could just list everyone that is any feral animal at all in one fell swoop and only narrow it down if necessary. Additionally, many 'body types' should also be primary categories for species for the sake of better searches. Similar to the animals problem, if you search, say, dragon, you get feral dragons, taur dragons, anthro dragons, kemomimi dragons, ect, you can't narrow these down. You also can't search for tags in two entirely different categories (at least not that I've been able to find) this would help bridge that.

@άκυρος: You could use body-type to search for animals. The body type "feral" should show you all feral animals. I assume a combined search is planned for the "final version". If not, then the two step factor wont help for this (as far as I understand).

Desdemona:

How are they seperated? I have problems to understand this. There are two lists you choose from and those choices create a single category? Like when I choose Cat and Kemonomimi and the result will be Neko?

You're overthinking it, they don't become a single category, they don't merge, you just have two categories there. You'll be Cat and Kemonomimi simuiltaneously. They won't turn into a new Neko category. You'll show up in searches for both. This is like a constrained multiselect.

άκυρος:

The two step factor would give more variety than we have currently, as well as make searching easier. If you are looking for animals currently, you have to look through each individual animal tag if you're not picky, with two step you could just list everyone that is any feral animal at all in one fell swoop and only narrow it down if necessary.

Yeah, this is exactly what I was going for.

Additionally, many 'body types' should also be primary categories for species for the sake of better searches. Similar to the animals problem, if you search, say, dragon, you get feral dragons, taur dragons, anthro dragons, kemomimi dragons, ect, you can't narrow these down. You also can't search for tags in two entirely different categories (at least not that I've been able to find) this would help bridge that.

This might also be helped out by a "not" option for search. I'm not sure if we've received a suggestion for that yet, so I've opened it here and if we have one already, it'll get closed as a duplicate of that one.

Might help cover for Undead, Deity, or supernatural/magical species groups, too. As there are individuals that started out as Zombies/Gods/Ghosts or what have you, and never had a living life.

Could list 'Other' species as "miscellaneous" which will cover other terms like Undead, God, Robot, Gem, etc

Since the new character creator offers two step selections, it might make sense to revive this discussion. It doesn't work very well now for species if I play a Neko. I choose Species: Demihuman, other and Body: Kemonomimi. I imagine that it could work better like this:

What body and species does your character have? Human, Kemonomimi, Anthro, Feral...

After choosing the body type "Kemonomimi" the species list appears to set the species.