Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

[Guest WhammeWhamme]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

And what if your character concept is the "Jack of all trades, Master of None" who has all skills at at least an 11- roll? Doing this by the book either requires A large number of character points with NO upper bound or the misuse of a VPP that doesn't cost nearly enough character points. I find this extremely annoying.

 

Sure, there is the possibility of abuse in ever allowing a character a way to change an 11- or (CHAR/5+9) skill from one thing to another, but how many (rhetorical question) STOP signs are there in the Powers and Power Modifiers sections of the book?

 

Actually...

 

Variable Skill Pool misses a few things. For one thing, what if you need to make a skill roll without knowing you WANT to know that skill right now?

 

Also, sometimes you need multiple skills at once. So.

 

Detect: When a Skill Will Be Useful before my next Phase, Sense (other modifiers as needed)

 

+

 

VPP: Skills (15pts of skills, no more than an 11- roll allowed)

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

If having all characters of the same class and level be indistinguishable makes for good role-playing' date=' how much better would the role-playing be if all characters of all classes and levels were exactly the same as each other? My telepathic sense tells me that you don't buy that argument. [/quote']

 

Absolutely identical? It would make role playing the only differentiation, but I don't see it fostering teamwork or making for as interesting a game overall. Mind you "Splatter movie hero" might best take this appoach - the characters tend to be more or less identical, other than personality quirks (occasionally meaning a skill or two is unique to a character). And the lower the total points, the more similar characters tend to become in Hero.

 

I wonder just how the role-playing experience would have been different if the system had supported me when I wanted to play a thief that was great with traps' date=' but no better at picking pockets than the ham-handed fighter, or play a fighter who knew just a few spells and knew the trick of picking pockets, ...[/quote']

 

Actually, 2e gave you the ability to customize your thief's sills, and I saw a few who chose to focus on some to the exclusion of others. Your figyhter might just be a abrd. However, there's no question a point-based system makes for more flexible character abilities and stats. I will point out that your comments above do support the case, however. You describe the characters solely in terms of their abilities, with no mention of personalities.

 

The system was fundamentally defective <IMHO> from the beginning' date=' and the last time I played it, (3rd Ed) the fundamental defect (character classes) was still getting in the way, but much had been done to allow the characters a little flexibility within their rigid cages.[/quote']

 

"Class" vs "classless" has been a debate since RPG's began. I don't see any "right answer".

 

The Hero System' date=' with whatever faults it has, real or imagined, at least allows the characters to be individuals from the very beginning. If I choose to play a wizard who is very good with mechanisms of all types, including locks and traps, but no better and hiding in shadows or moving silently than the average shmo, I can use the rules that exist instead of needing to ignore them.[/quote']

 

I enjoy both systems. There are players in both systems who see their characters as bundles of stats and abilities to be optimized (and more options, as Hero provides, makes focus on such optimization easier). And there are players in both systems who infuse their characters with personality and life (and Hero's limitations and disad's can force an inveterate wargamer to at least make such an attempt).

 

While I don't subscribe to the theory that identical characters in all respects would make a better game, I do believe a de-emphasis of abilities and greater emphasis on personalities makes for a better role playing game. The view that reducing choice of abilities forces differentiation through personality is not wholly unreasonable.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

While I don't subscribe to the theory that identical characters in all respects would make a better game, I do believe a de-emphasis of abilities and greater emphasis on personalities makes for a better role playing game. The view that reducing choice of abilities forces differentiation through personality is not wholly unreasonable.

 

I've never played... but isn't Amber kind of this "identical character" concept? It is diceless and ALL characters have basically the same "we are godlike" abilities... so the only differentiation comes through role playing.

 

I could be wrong... maybe Amber actually has stats that differentiate characters, but the stories I've heard about games don't mention them. And to your point, Hugh... nobody talks about their Amber character by defining their skills and abilities. Instead, they define them by personality and quirks and desires, etc.

 

Again... just supposing, as I've never played Amber.

[Supreme Serpent]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Most Amber characters have the same basic abilities as far as basic Pattern imprint, etc. They do have stats which are all relative. One of the main ways to start a campaign is to make the characters all at once, and they are then "ranked" against each other.

 

For example, say the campaign is set where the PC's are the only Amberites. Let's also say to make it easy they all allocate 30pts to stats. They spend as follows:

 

#1: Warfare=15 Strength=5 Endurance=5 Psyche=5

#2: Warfare=10 Strenght=10 Endurance=0 Psyche = 10

#3: Warfare= 0 Strenght=0 Endurance=10 Psyche=20

 

#1 is ranked first in Warfare. #2 is ranked first in Strength. #3 is ranked first in Endurance and Psyche.

 

Normally, in a combat involving swordplay, tactics, etc. #1 will beat #2, and will walk all over #3. If #2 can get close enough to grapple and turn it into a strength contest, he'll win, unless #1 can hold him off long enough to wear #2 out (#1 has better endurance), etc. In a psychic contest, #3 would blow either #1 or #2 away. It's all relative, and pretty much up to the GM based on relative rankings, descriptions and the situation how such direct contests turn out.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Most Amber characters have the same basic abilities as far as basic Pattern imprint, etc. They do have stats which are all relative. One of the main ways to start a campaign is to make the characters all at once, and they are then "ranked" against each other.

 

For example, say the campaign is set where the PC's are the only Amberites. Let's also say to make it easy they all allocate 30pts to stats. They spend as follows:

 

#1: Warfare=15 Strength=5 Endurance=5 Psyche=5

#2: Warfare=10 Strenght=10 Endurance=0 Psyche = 10

#3: Warfare= 0 Strenght=0 Endurance=10 Psyche=20

 

#1 is ranked first in Warfare. #2 is ranked first in Strength. #3 is ranked first in Endurance and Psyche.

 

Normally, in a combat involving swordplay, tactics, etc. #1 will beat #2, and will walk all over #3. If #2 can get close enough to grapple and turn it into a strength contest, he'll win, unless #1 can hold him off long enough to wear #2 out (#1 has better endurance), etc. In a psychic contest, #3 would blow either #1 or #2 away. It's all relative, and pretty much up to the GM based on relative rankings, descriptions and the situation how such direct contests turn out.

 

Ah... so there are "stats" but minimal, and highly abstract... and differenitation is limited as well. My initial thought is... so what if too "mental masters" contested... how would that turn out, other than "which player was the best role player with the kewlest description and ideas"

 

But thanks for the summary. Makes sense.

[incrdbil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

It was useful when I was in a group which kept track of it' date=' and, in retrospect, it would have been helpful in groups I have belonged to since, which did not. [/quote']

 

Well, get someone else to suggest it, maybe it would make it in. I'd prefer it not, seems like useless code clutter for a function of dubious use that can be handily done with a few seconds addition using the already present ability to display active points for individual entries.

[Guest bblackmoor]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

"Class" vs "classless" has been a debate since RPG's began. I don't see any "right answer".

 

Personally, I tend to prefer "classless", but Bradd Szonye wrote what I think is a convincing rationale for why class systems do have some value. It swayed my opinion away from being "anti-class" to being "classless preferred".

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Personally' date=' I tend to prefer "classless", but Bradd Szonye wrote what I think is a convincing rationale for why class systems do have some value. It swayed my opinion away from being "anti-class" to being "classless preferred".

 

Well, it comes down to "It creates ease of entry and ease of play." To some extent I can buy that... but whether it creates "good play" or not... that I can't support. Leveling, more than classes, just seems so forced and contrived. It destroys any verisimilitude to have prepackaged "stuff" that I get after I've killed enough kobolds.

 

Classes can work in a Skill Based system, though. Classes would be, to his point, setting specific. It would say, "In this world the following skill groups are culturally significant and supported. If you buy skills within that skill group, they are cheaper and support one another. If you start to branch out into skills outside of your group, you pay extra, and suffer penalties.

 

Or something like that. The skill groupings are not generic for any game played... they are created to reinforce the cultural/setting norms of the game world.

 

Now... what he doesn't mention, but should... is that leveling provides clear GOALS for players to strive for. I do X... gather Y... I eventually am rewarded with Z... which makes X and Y easier/more functional. Cyclical... reinforcing... goal oriented.

 

It is a very Gamist construct... not a bad thing in and of itself, but it supports a certian style of play over others.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with classes, I think the notion of career path or such can be good and it depends just on the genre and the intent of the game. I've created a major (in terms of size/scope/complexity) game like this and I think it was pretty useful and fun. But I certainly wouldn't use classes in many instances, supers being a leading simple example.

 

Tangent re Amber, I'd like to play sometime. The only thing is too many (in terms of making me feel it's a risk as to gaming groups) of the games I've seen written up online seem rather...flakey, frankly. Just lots of non-productive weirdness between players, in many of them, sort of like pure character development with absolutely neither simulation nor narrative embedded.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I see nothing intrinsically wrong with classes, I think the notion of career path or such can be good and it depends just on the genre and the intent of the game. I've created a major (in terms of size/scope/complexity) game like this and I think it was pretty useful and fun. But I certainly wouldn't use classes in many instances, supers being a leading simple example.

 

Tangent re Amber, I'd like to play sometime. The only thing is too many (in terms of making me feel it's a risk as to gaming groups) of the games I've seen written up online seem rather...flakey, frankly. Just lots of non-productive weirdness between players, in many of them, sort of like pure character development with absolutely neither simulation nor narrative embedded.

 

Actually I play with a long term Aberite... and what I realized was that he was very Simulationist... Sim CHARACTER. i.e. the whole focus was on "playing out the character as the concept dictates" (rather than Sim Combat, or Sim Investigation, or things like that.)

 

Once I realized this, I understood that his desire for character development is a form of Sim, and one that can be rewarded... but it can have very dangerous side effects. That "flakey" element, I believe, comes from a bunch of Sim Character players all doing their best to "be" the character, no matter if it was fun for others, told a story, developed a plot, whatever.

 

This Sim Character bit can be highly destructive to a cohesive play group... but (IMO) is probably at the heart of the desire to LARP and the advocates of WoD type games where the players don't really do anything, they are just along for the ride dictated by the GM and the metagame.

 

Very VERY different play style that has to be tempered a lot to fit Nar... and brings out the worst competitive elements of Gamist play.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Actually I play with a long term Aberite... and what I realized was that he was very Simulationist... Sim CHARACTER. i.e. the whole focus was on "playing out the character as the concept dictates" (rather than Sim Combat, or Sim Investigation, or things like that.)

 

Once I realized this, I understood that his desire for character development is a form of Sim, and one that can be rewarded... but it can have very dangerous side effects. That "flakey" element, I believe, comes from a bunch of Sim Character players all doing their best to "be" the character, no matter if it was fun for others, told a story, developed a plot, whatever.

 

This Sim Character bit can be highly destructive to a cohesive play group... but (IMO) is probably at the heart of the desire to LARP and the advocates of WoD type games where the players don't really do anything, they are just along for the ride dictated by the GM and the metagame.

 

Very VERY different play style that has to be tempered a lot to fit Nar... and brings out the worst competitive elements of Gamist play.

As a player I focus very strongly on character simulation, but I work hard to design characters that by their nature will be plot hook-driven and/or social in the appropriate group/genre. I think that's incumbent on anyone who's very much into character sim as a player.

 

I've always been both attracted and repelled by LARP, I can't get my hands around how one could do it and be in a group doing it that then wasn't too melodramatic or overboard about it. Yet when I first heard of D&D, I thought it was (without knowing the term back then) sort of a LARP game, I didn't understand how the simulation aspect worked. I went along "for the ride' out of interest/curiousity, and while disappointed in one aspect, I was intellectually excited in another, and that carried through, obviously, for the rest of my life.

[Kristopher]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Actually I play with a long term Aberite... and what I realized was that he was very Simulationist... Sim CHARACTER. i.e. the whole focus was on "playing out the character as the concept dictates" (rather than Sim Combat, or Sim Investigation, or things like that.)

 

Once I realized this, I understood that his desire for character development is a form of Sim, and one that can be rewarded... but it can have very dangerous side effects. That "flakey" element, I believe, comes from a bunch of Sim Character players all doing their best to "be" the character, no matter if it was fun for others, told a story, developed a plot, whatever.

 

This Sim Character bit can be highly destructive to a cohesive play group... but (IMO) is probably at the heart of the desire to LARP and the advocates of WoD type games where the players don't really do anything, they are just along for the ride dictated by the GM and the metagame.

 

Very VERY different play style that has to be tempered a lot to fit Nar... and brings out the worst competitive elements of Gamist play.

 

In my experience, Vampire was far less GM-driven than any (A)D&D game I've ever seen or been part of, and far more dependent upon proactive, competent players.

[zornwil]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

I can't say at all, but I will say a friend of mine who is very heavy into character sim but also very proactive about plotting and having a strong narrative interest as well was really into Vampire for a while.

[DangerousDan]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

Absolutely identical? It would make role playing the only differentiation, but I don't see it fostering teamwork or making for as interesting a game overall...

While I don't subscribe to the theory that identical characters in all respects would make a better game, I do believe a de-emphasis of abilities and greater emphasis on personalities makes for a better role playing game. The view that reducing choice of abilities forces differentiation through personality is not wholly unreasonable.

 

The "identical character" suggestion was said with tongue planted so firmly in cheek that I'm lucky I didn't poke a hole.

 

My view is that having differing abilities from the beginning supports differentiation through personality, and thus role-play as well. On a slightly different tangent, I sometimes miss the randomly generated element of (A)D&D. Sometimes you played a character you hadn't planned on having, and that had some role-playing aspects. You discovered who the character was from what it could do. With the Hero System, that doesn't happen so much. You hardly ever get surprised by the abilities your character has. You can only be surprised that you could afford all that you had planned.

[Hugh Neilson]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

The "identical character" suggestion was said with tongue planted so firmly in cheek that I'm lucky I didn't poke a hole.

 

My view is that having differing abilities from the beginning supports differentiation through personality, and thus role-play as well.

 

I believe this can go either way. For some polayers, they will design a character from whole cloth - abilities and personality mesh togethjer and are inregral parts of the character. Others get caught up in "differentiation by ability" and play cardboard cut-outs. Many of the latter will have no real personaility in a D&D game either. It's a combination of game system and player in all cases.

 

On a slightly different tangent' date=' I sometimes miss the randomly generated element of (A)D&D. Sometimes you played a character you hadn't planned on having, and that had some role-playing aspects. You discovered who the character was from what it could do. With the Hero System, that doesn't happen so much. You hardly ever get surprised by the abilities your character has. You can only be surprised that you could afford all that you had [i']planned[/i].

 

If there's an older debate than "class vs point based" it must surely be "random vs designer characters". The other nice thing about random generation is that it constrains options, so it's less overwhelming, and is great when you have no specific character in mind. The drawback is that luck of the draw means there tends to be a greater power disparity between characters. D&D3e incorporates a point-based "buy your stats" option which seems aimed at equalizing stat power. Earlier editions had various mneans of allowing ability scores to be arranged in the manner desired to create a character one wanted to play. Both aproaches had the result that characters with an out of place ability (a 16 INT fighter, for example) were scarce as hen's teeth.

[prestidigitator]

Re: Focus = Too Great a Price Break?

 

On a slightly different tangent' date=' I sometimes miss the randomly generated element of (A)D&D. Sometimes you played a character you hadn't planned on having, and that had some role-playing aspects. You discovered who the character was from what it could do. With the Hero System, that doesn't happen so much. You hardly ever get surprised by the abilities your character has. You can only be surprised that you could afford all that you had [i']planned[/i].

You can always roll for your Characteristics (the Primary ones, anyway) in Hero, too; just pay afterwards for what you rolled, and adjust slightly to taste if you like.