[WK 4-6] Brainstorm Traits System
Classifications
I decided to look into the ways dogs are classified since there are so many different kinds of dogs there cold be an interesting basis for traits based on pre-existing classifications.
1. Breeds
2. Breed Groups
3. Small / Medium / Large
4. Packs
‘UK’s 7 Dog Breed Groups’. 2025. Lifetime Pet Cover [online]. Available at: https://www.lifetimepetcover.co.uk/pet-advice/news/uks-7-dog-breed-groups/ [accessed 21 Oct 2025].
‘Terrier | Breeds, Care, Upkeep, Temperament, Hunting, & Dogfighting | Britannica’. 2025. [online]. Available at: https://www.britannica.com/animal/terrier-type-of-dog [accessed 21 Oct 2025].
1. Breeds
Initial Ideas:
-
Collie: crowd control ability
-
Spaniel: sniffing ability? Removes camouflage /
-
Corgi: bark buffs
-
St Bernard: paladin – health plus team buffs
-
Staffie: high ATK plus high DEF
One breed of dog indicates a specific set of genetic characteristics meaning that the breed classification is highly specific. Whilst there can be variation from one dog to another the features that would make a breed a trait would make it hard to diversify one unit from another.
-
Perhaps breeds would be better as individual units?
-
How would breeds work as a trait?
Perhaps the set of characteristics from any particular breed would form the basis for trait bonus’.
2. Breed Groups
Humans have categorized breeds into groups based on their original purpose since dog breeds have been selectively bred by humans to perform specific functions.
Breed groups could be a really good base to create traits from. They have distinct purpose driven qualities that can form the basis for a trait advantage whilst leaving enough room for variation in individual units because breeds can have specialised characteristics under their grouping.
3. Small / Medium / Large
Dogs are often classified as small / medium or large. This classification is based around a dog's size rather than a grouping of characteristics. This could be advantageous because it lines up with the classic team structure of support / attack / defence. Plus, the shape / form language would create immediate recognisability to players.
Conversely, I feel like this grouping doesn’t provide a particularly unique basis since support / attack / defence is seen so often. Although there is room to combine the roles it doesn’t provide an interesting basis for traits.
4. Packs
The last option I could go for is just making up some traits using my own intuition about the looks of dogs / what is generally fun to play within the auto chess genre. I could freely determine which breeds form a pack as one trait. However, it might be hard to easily convey to players what traits do through more than just words. I also don’t feel like this would support my portfolio as well as one of the other groupings might because with the other groupings, I could demonstrate how my system has been informed by solid research.
Conclusion:
On balance I find 2. breed groupings to be the best foundation to form my traits because:
-
Purpose driven classification groups characteristics that reinforce a purpose creating a solid thematic foundation and giving me a clear direction for what the tone of gameplay should feel like within particular strategies
-
Offers room for diversity in individual units without compromising the trait
-
Gives me room to demonstrate research skills and display how I embed research within my work
-
Easily conveyable to the player beyond just text because the characteristics of dogs give clues as to their purpose