Priority Character Creation Meta-System

[UltraRob]

So, I have been playing with an idea I got from Shadowrun as a way of nudging my PCs in the right direction in games I run. I call this a "priority system" of character development, and basically it runs as follows:

 

Would a "priority" system work for HERO or GURPS? And would it enhance or limit the gameplay and character creation?

 

ie for a WuXia Martial Arts Game in HERO

 

Characters must choose between 5 categories and allocate points accordingly, the base characters are 150pts with 100pts of disadvantages, for a total of 250pts.

 

The categories are:

Attributes

Martial Arts Techniques/Maneuvers/Powers

Skills (general skills, non-combat)

Social (Perks, Contacts, Money, non-skills)

Special

 

Points are allocated thus:

Priority One: 100pts (40%)

Priority Two: 75pts (30%)

Priority Three: 50pts (20%)

Priority Four: 20pts (8%)

Priority Five: 5pts (2%)

 

The PC would choose these priorities as one of the first steps of character creation, and should not be allowed to pick them after. The idea is to encourage character conceptualization and make the player think about where the character is really focussed. After all, how many people just start putting piles of points together semi-randomly in HERO? It might work sometimes, but especially when it comes to newbies, I think having something like this to give them more "structure" when they make their character would be beneficial.

 

The character cannot use more than those points in building that aspect of their character, and thus must focus and specialize in order to achieve the result they want. It also has the advantage of forcing them to spend points in areas they might otherwise ignore in power gaming activities. (ie Social Stuff like PERKS and Money in HERO.)

 

Special can be anything which makes the character semi-unique. For example, special equipment, magic in some settings, unique skills out of the ordinary or talents. It should also be 100% under GM discretion and control unless otherwise defined ahead of time. (ie a list of options.)

 

In a 150pt HERO game, they would look like this:

Priority One: 60pts

Priority Two: 45pts

Priority Three: 30pts

Priority Four: 12pts

Priority Five: 3pts

 

(of course, 245pt, and 145pt GURPS characters will use the same progression.)

 

For a Fantasy Game, I guess the categories would be:

 

Attributes

Race

Skills

Social

Special

 

Although Race might come under "special", since it is something that separates the character from the others, and could be replaced by Combat Skills. (Especially if you were putting Martial Arts maneuvers into your game.)

 

The idea is that you can change the priorities to fit whatever you run, and whatever will work best to get the genre feel you are trying to accomplish.

 

I wouldn't use this for Superhero games unless I wanted the PCs to be more "well rounded" characters in say something more like "X-men" which is supposed to have more down to earth characters. When you get to "Justice League" level, doing this will get in the way because they are bundles of powers and hyper-skills set up to kick butt.

 

Oh, and I also see this as a way to deal with the "attribute maxing" and "skill level race" that I often see happen in Fantasy HERO level games where everyone often dumps everything into a few places. Because they have less points to work with, you won't end up so much with everyone looking the exact same, and they will be more rounded characters.

 

Anyways, I hope this helps. Comments and questions are of course appreciated.

Rob

[ghost-angel]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I see this as immediately limiting for character creation. One of the things I go for with a character concept is not how many points are in what area, but what levels of any given area make sense and construct it appropriately. And to nip those power-gamer instincts to not go with Perks and non-combat Talents/Skills I use in game tactics on them ... of course, when I run I don't like hack'n'slashers and will stomp them into the dirt if possible.

 

I also see it as an even worse way to introduce the idea of character creation to a newbie .. the beauty of Hero is the massive number of choices you have that allow you to build exactly what you want. To me, anything that gets in the way of that idea (barring genre limitations) is a Bad Thing.

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

The PC would choose these priorities as one of the first steps of character creation, and should not be allowed to pick them after. The idea is to encourage character conceptualization and make the player think about where the character is really focussed. After all, how many people just start putting piles of points together semi-randomly in HERO? It might work sometimes, but especially when it comes to newbies, I think having something like this to give them more "structure" when they make their character would be beneficial.

 

I don't believe many, if any at all, players make characters by just "putting piles of points together semi-randomly". You can't really create a character in HERO without some kind of concept in mind before you start, whether you start with a fully fleshed out persona, a fantasy or superheroic archetype, a name, a costume, or even a gimmick ("I want a guy who is an eagle eye and a dead shot with a sniper rifle!" or "I want to drive the cool van!").

 

I don't think such a thing is necessary.

[AlHazred]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

One of the GMs in my group used to do things this way. Now, he insists on sitting down with you one-on-one and role-playing through your character's history, jotting down how he develops. Personally, if it works for your group, then that's all the argument you need.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

If it works for you, fine, but I wouldnt play in such a game personally.

 

Theres a difference between making templates available to players to pick & choose from if they like, and another to straightjacket them into "archetypes" -- aka "classes".

 

Just my opinion....

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I see this as immediately limiting for character creation. One of the things I go for with a character concept is not how many points are in what area' date=' but what levels of any given area make sense and construct it appropriately. And to nip those power-gamer instincts to not go with Perks and non-combat Talents/Skills I use in game tactics on them ... of course, when I run I don't like hack'n'slashers and will stomp them into the dirt if possible. [/quote']

 

Well, I've been GMing about 15 years, and in that time and many groups, I can say honestly that I can count on two hands the number of players who actually bought something resembling PERKs in almost any game, genre or system. (And I wasn't GMing D&D, we're talking mostly point-based systems like HERO, GURPS, DC HEROs and others here.)

As for nailing players who don't buy Non-com skills...I hear a lot of GMs say that, but in the end, I have noticed often the characters who will still be standing at the end of the game are the ones who didn't buy the non-com skills. Role Playing Games are many things, but the simple truth is they are combat focussed 9 times out of 10. (Not to say that you personally don't run 100% RPing focussed games with little combat, I am speaking generally from my own experience.) If you don't run roughshod over the players, what I always seem to get is 90% combat machines, and MAYBE 10% dedicated to other aspects of the character.

This metasystem is my own little way of forcing the PCs to break down where they will focus their character, and not be able to avoid having to put something into other areas like PERKS. I don't really see it as significantly different than that little list we all make that says "Max Attributes 10-20, CVs-6-12, MAX Def:12, etc" we already limit and focus our players based on genre and what we are trying to achieve with the game.

In fact, the metasystem offers more freedom to them in a way, since by limiting what points can go where, I don't have to run roughshod on them half as much. The point system (which we all know from experience isn't balanced in and of itself) becomes a limiter instead of us standing over their shoulders saying "no, no, no, maybe, no, no friggen way!"

 

I also see it as an even worse way to introduce the idea of character creation to a newbie .. the beauty of Hero is the massive number of choices you have that allow you to build exactly what you want. To me, anything that gets in the way of that idea (barring genre limitations) is a Bad Thing.

 

Again, I see it as quite the opposite. Especially when you have newbies coming off D&D, they have no clue as to where to put their points, and in my experience tend to pile them onto the combat stats.

Perfect example was the last HERO fantasy game I ran...two players used to D&D walk in...they stare wide-eyed at FRED as I try to get concepts out of them and then in the end go for extremely narrow concepts (1 of them put 80% of his points into SPD to make super-fast goblin, the other put all his points in DEX and STR to make a barbarian-type.) which I let them play because getting more out of them was like getting blood from a stone. In the end the goblin died fast (no pun, or surprise there because he had no defenses..) but the Barbarian ended up lording over the higher-skilled and balanced PCs by virtue of being a purely DEX based and ignoring skills almost altogether. (To the point where we had to tone his character down...so much for points being balancing...)

While the Goblin's next character was more balanced (he could handle the system now, at least a little better...) I think that giving them more of a framework of where to put those points and pick from would have resulted in more rounded characters from the get-go.

Yes, I can achieve similar results by spending many hours coaxing them through things....while the other 4 experienced members of the group sit around bored because they finished their PCs in an hour....But to get them as quickly into play as possible, sometimes you just gotta fudge things.

My 2 cents, anyways...

 

Rob

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

If it works for you, fine, but I wouldnt play in such a game personally.

 

Theres a difference between making templates available to players to pick & choose from if they like, and another to straightjacket them into "archetypes" -- aka "classes".

 

Just my opinion....

 

Reasonable. I do realize what I am saying probably looks like an Imperialist preaching King and Country to a bunch of Rebellous Freedom Fighters.

 

 

But, what I am trying to do is not straightjacket them, simply ask them to produce a more rounded character. I am not saying where those points go, exactly, just limiting how much can go where in the name of character balance. I see a big difference between this and Character Classes, because they can choose where their points are going to go, and aren't limited in what they do with them.

 

Really, I see this as a halfway compromise between a character class system and an open point-based system. I ask nobody to use it who wouldn't want to, but don't think it's without merit to consider in some gaming situations.

 

 

 

 

 

Best!

Rob

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

As for nailing players who don't buy Non-com skills...I hear a lot of GMs say that, but in the end, I have noticed often the characters who will still be standing at the end of the game are the ones who didn't buy the non-com skills. Role Playing Games are many things, but the simple truth is they are combat focussed 9 times out of 10. (Not to say that you personally don't run 100% RPing focussed games with little combat, I am speaking generally from my own experience.) If you don't run roughshod over the players, what I always seem to get is 90% combat machines, and MAYBE 10% dedicated to other aspects of the character.

 

It seems to me that this is where the issue is. If all you give the players is combat, they're going to optimize their characters for combat. If what they want is lots of combat, and you're giving it to them, then you're not doing anything wrong... but if what they want is lots of combat, and you're forcing them to build their characters in a more balanced fashion, then you are doing something wrong.

 

The other reason they could be optimizing their characters for combat is if your villains are so completely optimized for it that in order to stay competitive they have to do the same. In that case, even though you're giving them lots of opportunities for roleplaying, they're missing out because they feel like they need to be point-optimized combat machines to have a hope of competing with your villains. The thing to do in that case is to tone down the combat worthiness of the villains. (You do build them to the same restrictions you're applying to the PCs, right?)

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

It seems to me that this is where the issue is. If all you give the players is combat' date=' they're going to optimize their characters for combat. If what they want is lots of combat, and you're giving it to them, then you're not doing anything wrong... but if what they want is lots of combat, and you're forcing them to build their characters in a more balanced fashion, then you [i']are[/i] doing something wrong.

 

Well, in the last 9 or so hours of my current campaign...there was about 1/2 hour of combat, to give you an idea of how combat oriented I am as a GM. I have more roleplaying subplots going on than the group can handle, and most of them will never lead to combat of anything but the emotional kind.

 

The other reason they could be optimizing their characters for combat is if your villains are so completely optimized for it that in order to stay competitive they have to do the same. In that case, even though you're giving them lots of opportunities for roleplaying, they're missing out because they feel like they need to be point-optimized combat machines to have a hope of competing with your villains. The thing to do in that case is to tone down the combat worthiness of the villains. (You do build them to the same restrictions you're applying to the PCs, right?)

 

Yeppers, I am big on balance. As I said to one of my friends the other day, I hate "mooks", I have a real thing against faceless villians. Every one of those people they fight is a person, or at least a facimilie thereof. The PCs can bargain with them, bet with them, party with them, or do just about anything they want. Sure I have big baddies who are built on a lot more points than my PCs, but the world isn't fair....Not that ever stopped a PC from charging right up against even the worst of them instead of just staying calm or retreating....What is it about gamers that makes them incapable of understanding the concept of..."We'll get her later!"?

 

Rob

[BlackSword]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

But, what I am trying to do is not straightjacket them, simply ask them to produce a more rounded character. I am not saying where those points go, exactly, just limiting how much can go where in the name of character balance. I see a big difference between this and Character Classes, because they can choose where their points are going to go, and aren't limited in what they do with them.

Hmm, it seems interesting, but this was one of my complaints with WW and why I prefered HERO's more open ended creation.

 

One thought, don't make it come out to %100, make the total come out to %110 (or %90 with the extra %10 going where the players want). I realize that you may allow tweaking after creation, but that way someone's concept isn't forced because they only get 5 points in Priority 5, but instead can bump that up to 10 points. I realize this means the may put all those extra points into combat skills no matter what, but it at least allows a bit of flexibility.

[Markdoc]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I can see where you are coming from - though like most here, I wouldn't go for it. Give me freedom or give me more points, I say!

 

But to be fair, sometime newbies need nudging. In that case I tend to give them "archetypes". ie: if someone want to play a fighter type but is utterly clueless about how or why to make a character I hand them the generic NPC fighter type, which has a list of options and let them customise away.

 

Some people just naturally deal better with "choose from a list". BUT! - and here's the cunning part - often they suddenly realise that if they can just trim a few points somewhere, then they can buy both "strong as a bull" AND "tough as leather" - once that hits home then they start to get interested in the system, and you're home free.

 

cheers, Mark

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

Yeppers' date=' I am big on balance. As I said to one of my friends the other day, I hate "mooks", I have a real thing against faceless villians. Every one of those people they fight is a person, or at least a facimilie thereof. The PCs can bargain with them, bet with them, party with them, or do just about anything they want. [b']Sure I have big baddies who are built on a lot more points than my PCs, but the world isn't fair[/b]....Not that ever stopped a PC from charging right up against even the worst of them instead of just staying calm or retreating....What is it about gamers that makes them incapable of understanding the concept of..."We'll get her later!"?

 

Rob

 

(Emphasis above mine.) Players don't like to lose, and they have to fight to the end. Retreating is an admission of defeat, and most players won't do it. And if you build villains on more points, they're going to optimize and optimize some more to keep up.

 

Question: Do the PCs ever win? In other words, do they ever, after a hard fight, drag the unconscious villains tied up to the police station? Or do the villains always teleport away, with or without achieving their objective? I'm going to guess no to the former and yes to the latter. I'm also going to guess that, while the players enjoy the roleplaying, they don't really get a chance to win or achieve objectives while doing it. It doesn't really settle any issues, but is just talk-talk until the combat happens, sort of a side track so to speak.

 

If you want the PCs to concentrate on roleplaying, reward it by making the combats less important, and the roleplaying more important. Let them win in combat, small frequently, or big occasionally. Let them beat the villains unconscious and throw 'em to the cops. You can always have 'em released on a technicality, or have them escape either with or without outside help.

 

I'll bet also that your players would throw a fit if you had one PC knocked unconscious and kidnapped, or if you took away one PC's powers but kept putting him up against the villains anyway. How many times in the comics was Batman knocked out and hung over an acid trap or whatever, and how many times had Superman lost his powers, but kept fighting the villains anyway because he's the hero and that's what heroes do? These are great roleplaying opportunities, perfectly in genre, but players throw fits over them because that means losing. This is completely a side issue, though.

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I think my main objection to your system as a player would be the number of points it ties up. I think you can nudge players towards making characters that are reasonably well rounded and fit well into a campaign's tone by simply giving them an incentive to voluntarily take such packages (though, again, I would make them smaller). This works particularly well on min-maxer players.

 

For example, several years ago, I put together a Fantasy Hero world with a bit of an unusual world "feel," and kept being submitted characters that didn't fit it at all. I combatted this trend in two ways:

1. I made a bunch of point Package Deals for various things. These were primarily racial, cultural, and organizational, but very specific to the game world. So there was no "Elf" package, but there was a "Waterwood Deep Elf" package. There was no "Dwarven Cultural Package," but there was a "Grey Mountains Highlander" cultural package. There was no "Mage" package, but there was an "Order Of The Silver Star" package. And so on. The packages tended to be 15-30 points, with 10-20 points worth of Disadvantages, for a "net cost" of 5-10 points each.
   
2. To encourage players to take the packages, I made it a house rule that only the "net cost" of a package counted toward the characters total cost. (Or, to put it differently, the Disadvantages from their packages didn't count against their total allowed Disadvantages.)

So characters weren't required to take any packages, but almost all of them did so, because it essentially gave them free points (two words players love).

 

I considered it plenty well worth it, because it resulted in characters who were more well-balanced, and engaged in the world around them.

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

(Emphasis above mine.) Players don't like to lose' date=' and they have to fight to the end. Retreating is an admission of defeat, and most players won't do it. And if you build villains on more points, they're going to optimize and optimize some more to keep up. [/quote']

 

Actually, the vast majority of my NPCs are built at or below player level. When I build a major villian, I make a point of tattooing "major villain" on his forehead (metaphorically, of course) so they don't fight them straight on...Still never works.

 

Y'no, it's a weird thing, but one of the few things I like about a Level System like D&D is that when the 2nd level PCs meet a dude they can mark in some way as "really experienced" (nudge nudge, wink wink) they will actually hold off on the combat because they know the phrase "no way in hell" actually applies.

But, whenever I run or play in point-based games, by virtue of point based characters often being more even...they think nothing of taking on everyone they meet because they realize their combined points will outnumber most even major opponents.

 

Question: Do the PCs ever win? In other words, do they ever, after a hard fight, drag the unconscious villains tied up to the police station? Or do the villains always teleport away, with or without achieving their objective? I'm going to guess no to the former and yes to the latter. I'm also going to guess that, while the players enjoy the roleplaying, they don't really get a chance to win or achieve objectives while doing it. It doesn't really settle any issues, but is just talk-talk until the combat happens, sort of a side track so to speak.

 

I have a rule, it's a simple one, and all my players know it.

The PCs, unless they do something bizzare (like join the villians, which has happened...) will generally win anything I run, but they will go through hell to do it. After all, this is a game where the PCs are the heros, and the most important people in the story.

If they build a bunch of nerdy archeologist, I will make a way for them to win. If they build a bunch of mega-heros, I will make a way for them to win. And the opposition will be suited to each task, and the bad guys will act quite logically according to the genre and setting.

If they outthink my bad guys, which has happened, then they will win without throwing a punch.

I should note, I tend to run non-superhero games, as my group is oddly enough not a fan of traditional superhero stuff.

 

If you want the PCs to concentrate on roleplaying, reward it by making the combats less important, and the roleplaying more important. Let them win in combat, small frequently, or big occasionally. Let them beat the villains unconscious and throw 'em to the cops. You can always have 'em released on a technicality, or have them escape either with or without outside help.

 

Usually my villians are dead...my players don't believe in leaving things to chance....I have to plan carefully if I don't want dead villians...But again, I'm not running traditional superhero stuff, more fantasy, SF, and assorted original weirdness...

 

I'll bet also that your players would throw a fit if you had one PC knocked unconscious and kidnapped, or if you took away one PC's powers but kept putting him up against the villains anyway. How many times in the comics was Batman knocked out and hung over an acid trap or whatever, and how many times had Superman lost his powers, but kept fighting the villains anyway because he's the hero and that's what heroes do? These are great roleplaying opportunities, perfectly in genre, but players throw fits over them because that means losing. This is completely a side issue, though.

 

Done all of that, the group didn't make a peep. They just soldiered on. They know I always leave options, and they trust me as a GM enough to know they're not truely helpless. So long as they don't do anything stupid, that is...If I tell them they have no powers, and they go up against Dr. Destroyer anyways...Well, they can debate the folly of their ways while they wait in his torture chamber to be disected and used in experiments...Even then, a beautiful lab assistant will fall for one of the PCs and help them find a way to the hidden cave where the mysterious minerals can restore their powers...If only they can reach the sun and activate the minerals...

 

Rob

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

Hmm, it seems interesting, but this was one of my complaints with WW and why I prefered HERO's more open ended creation.

 

One thought, don't make it come out to %100, make the total come out to %110 (or %90 with the extra %10 going where the players want). I realize that you may allow tweaking after creation, but that way someone's concept isn't forced because they only get 5 points in Priority 5, but instead can bump that up to 10 points. I realize this means the may put all those extra points into combat skills no matter what, but it at least allows a bit of flexibility.

 

Actually, that's why I had a category called "special" or whatever, which literally was there as a slush fund for further character customization. After all, the idea is to nudge them into a more even distribution of points, not to handicap them from making the dude they want to make. Which is also the reason the players set their own priorities on the categories, I didn't plan on saying "Ranger= Attributes>Combat Skills>Noncom Skills>Special>Social." But instead letting them do whatever they wanted, within the idea that they had to allocate which blocks of points went where. The idea is to prevent complete neglect of the overall character in favor of min-maxing.

 

Rob

[Chris Goodwin]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

Ok then. Bottom line is, if the players are having fun, and you're having fun, then don't change anything.

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I think my main objection to your system as a player would be the number of points it ties up. I think you can nudge players towards making characters that are reasonably well rounded and fit well into a campaign's tone by simply giving them an incentive to voluntarily take such packages (though, again, I would make them smaller). This works particularly well on min-maxer players.

 

For example, several years ago, I put together a Fantasy Hero world with a bit of an unusual world "feel," and kept being submitted characters that didn't fit it at all. I combatted this trend in two ways:

1. I made a bunch of point Package Deals for various things. These were primarily racial, cultural, and organizational, but very specific to the game world. So there was no "Elf" package, but there was a "Waterwood Deep Elf" package. There was no "Dwarven Cultural Package," but there was a "Grey Mountains Highlander" cultural package. There was no "Mage" package, but there was an "Order Of The Silver Star" package. And so on. The packages tended to be 15-30 points, with 10-20 points worth of Disadvantages, for a "net cost" of 5-10 points each.
   
2. To encourage players to take the packages, I made it a house rule that only the "net cost" of a package counted toward the characters total cost. (Or, to put it differently, the Disadvantages from their packages didn't count against their total allowed Disadvantages.)

So characters weren't required to take any packages, but almost all of them did so, because it essentially gave them free points (two words players love).

 

I considered it plenty well worth it, because it resulted in characters who were more well-balanced, and engaged in the world around them.

 

 

Sounds good! I will keep that in mind the next time I run something a little more focussed...Although I don't quite understand how this would affect the min-maxers, they'd still min-max, just be doing it having been forced to take more appropriate extra skills for the setting. You're basically just letting them get around having to spend their precious combat points on roleplaying stuff by giving them cheap extra setting-specific skills. They end up being setting-specific combat machines instead of general combat machines....

 

Rob

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

Ok then. Bottom line is' date=' if the players are having fun, and you're having fun, then don't change anything.[/quote']

 

Well, being a GM, and a HERO GM at that...I am always looking for ways to improve things...Tinkering is in my nature.

 

I admit, I haven't tried this meta-system out yet, it's something I thought of recently in my continuing quest to see if there wasn't a better way to get them to distribute those points evenly. (And avoid things like a whole party with identical DEXs and SPDs...)

 

Overall, my group is a good one, and I enjoy GMing for them. They have their flaws, but then no group is perfect.

 

Rob

[Derek Hiemforth]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

Although I don't quite understand how this would affect the min-maxers' date=' they'd still min-max, just be doing it having been forced to take more appropriate extra skills for the setting. You're basically just letting them get around having to spend their precious combat points on roleplaying stuff by giving them cheap extra setting-specific skills. They end up being setting-specific combat machines instead of general combat machines....[/quote']I think you understand it perfectly. My gripe wasn't that they were combat machines per se... it was that they were flavorless, generic combat machines that didn't fit the world they were in.

 

Actually, you can get around the "giving them extra points" issue if you're sneaky. Did you ever have a friend who was always late, so that if you wanted them to arrive at 7:30, you'd have to tell them to be there by 7:00? This is kinda the same thing. If you're using a system like the one I described, and you really want the PCs built on around 200 points, you have the players make them up at 150. They'll think they're getting "extra" points and exceeding the 150 level by taking packages, when really you're just getting them up to the level you wanted them at all along, but with stuff you want them to have built-in.

[Vondy]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I would sit down with the players and come to an accord.

 

Explain that your game will require more rounded characters, and that success will not come down to combat alone. Tell them non-combat skills and perks will be equally important.

 

And here's the kicker - you have to follow through on it. You have to reward them for buying those skills and perks by putting them in situations where those skills and perks matter.

 

In my game I've actually started to get characters that I hand back and say: you need to beef up for combat! This is because my players have come to recognize they get more mileage out of non-combat abilities most the time.

 

Perhaps my game is a-typical, but part of it is training and positive. Most of my players were hardcore min/max dungeon crawlers before coming to my table.

 

Its a matter of tone and style. What you emphasize is what the players will gear up for. Most gamers don't expect/understand a non-combat gaming paradigm at first. You have to earn their trust before they stop trying to go out on romantic dates in full commando gear and telling you, every time, that they sleep with a gun under their pillow (and in the nightstand drawer, and under the bed, and...)

[UltraRob]

Re: Priority Character Creation Meta-System

 

I think you understand it perfectly. My gripe wasn't that they were combat machines per se... it was that they were flavorless, generic combat machines that didn't fit the world they were in.

 

They'll think they're getting "extra" points and exceeding the 150 level by taking packages, when really you're just getting them up to the level you wanted them at all along, but with stuff you want them to have built-in.

 

Hahaha!

Points taken!

I will remember to do that next time.

Actually, I have a real temptation to try running a 25+25pt campaign someday, just to see how it comes out. Doing what you're doing might be the only way to make sure they get the skills they need to surivive.

 

Rob