Character Assessment Method

[Killer Shrike]

Reprised a post I made to a pBem a long time ago, blowing it out into a general purpose article:

 

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HERO5RelvanceReliablity.htm

 

Hope it helps someone.

[Sean Waters]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

Well worth a read even if you don't use all the detail: it will get you thinking about character design and style in a productive way. Excellent.

[Black Rose]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

Very cool, KS. Simplifies a lot of skull sweat. Though I do admit I was looking forward to an elegant set of charts.

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

Zen and the Way of HERO

[Manic Typist]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

I would be interested in tips as to how you would improve a character's reliability.

 

Also, could you provide some more deliniation between Relevance and Reliability? If someone is EXTREMELY relevant to a setting...... then could that become their "schtick" and thus increase their reliability...... even if another character's stats at a given ability were far superior?

 

I guess in terms of roleplaying, the character with relevance will be more effective. But, when combat comes about, the reliable character will be more... reliable?

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

I would be interested in tips as to how you would improve a character's reliability.

 

Also, could you provide some more deliniation between Relevance and Reliability? If someone is EXTREMELY relevant to a setting...... then could that become their "schtick" and thus increase their reliability...... even if another character's stats at a given ability were far superior?

 

 

Well, as far as improving Reliability, it's usually very specifc to the individual character and the way their player wants to use them. Basically just ask "what is this character's purpose" and "how is this character supposed to stand out". If it seems like the character can succeed at doing so under reasonable circumstances then they are Very Reliable. If the character can succeed under abnormal circumstances then they are Extremely Reliable.

 

I usually call this the character's "shtick", but their are many names for it. A character's shtick should be expressable in a single sentence, and it should tell you everything you need to know about that character at a very high level.

 

For instance, Spiderman's shtick can be summed up as "Wall-crawlin web-slingin wise-cracker with the proportional strength and agility of a spider and sensitivity to danger.". Now that doesnt cover some of the more esoteric aspects of the character, but it captures the core essense. Since Spidey "works" in most situations, but sometimes comes up short, he is "Very Reliable". Since he has his own comic (at least one), he is Extremely Relevant in his own titles. However, when he crosses over into the Avengers, FF and similar titles his Relevance dips quite a bit, and perhaps his Reliability as well. Etc...

 

 

Shtick can be many things. For instance, a character's shtick might be to do something as simple as "Be funny in a madcap sort of way", in which case the character's Reliablity will revolve around how capable the character is at being amusing, and their Relevance will vary based upon how appropriate comic relief is to a particular campaign.

 

One character's shtick might be very specific, such as "Man With No Name Knockoff", in which case the character's Reliability will be determined by how accurately they are able to pull that off. Other character's shticks might be more vague such as "Hyper-Aware", or situational such as "Last Man Standing", or meta-gamey such as "Has a blast for every occasion", or origin-oriented such as "Elite Warrior of [X] People / Nation / Race" or "Robot" or "Cat-person", or exemplary such as "Paragon of [X] Virtue", and so forth.

 

 

You should be able to look at a character or talk to a player and distill what the character is about, and having done so assess whether or not they are any good at it. If they are then they are Reliable.

 

 

As far as being "Being Relevant" as a shtick, I would say that its not a valid distinction. Being relevant is an evaluation that is made constantly; the _way_ that a character is relevant is part of their shtick.

 

I guess in terms of roleplaying, the character with relevance will be more effective. But, when combat comes about, the reliable character will be more... reliable?

 

Well, its not so much a case of "Relevance = Roleplaying", unless Roleplaying is what your campaign is mostly about.

 

For instance, lets say you were running a campaign that was all about fighting a war; lets say you were running an Aliens or Starship Troopers or Orcwars campaign for instance. In the typical session you expect about 75% combat, usually stressing team tactics since individual characters are not too powerful on their own, and about 20% Roleplaying, and to model the military theme about 5% competing with other units by putting up exemplary battle statistics handled via some ginned up method.

 

Characters that have about 75% of their points spent on combat stuff, 20% or so spent on roleplaying, background, and concept abilities appropriate to a military environment, and a little extra something that helps them be particularly efficient at one or more things particular to the counting coup / war board idea are going to be EXTREMELY Relevant to that campaign, while a character that is about 75% roleplaying in a military environment and concept and 20~% combat are only Somewhat Relevant and a character that is not well suited for combat or roleplaying in a military environment would be Barely Relevant.

 

 

Considered along the Reliability axis however, the Extremely Relevant character might be spread too thin, or only able to bring what they are good at to the table under certain conditions, or just lacking in some critical stat such as OCV or SPD and thus they might be any degree of Reliability despite their Relevance. For instance, a Gunner that knows how to use every single weapon, drive every single vehicle, and is at least Familiar with a broad range of skills and Knowledge Skills is likely to have SOME applicability in just about any encounter making them Extremely Relevant to the campaign, but their overall competancy isn't that high so they are only Somewhat Reliable.

 

Similarly the Somewhat Relevant character might be particularly good at something, such as a specialist in a particular field. For instance, a Comms guy that speaks a dozen languages and knows everything there is to know about communications equipment might only be Somewhat Relevant in this combat heavy campaign, but when the need arises for a comm guy or a translator / mouthpiece he's almost certainly got it covered, making him Extremely Reliable.

 

And finally the ill-suited character could be really good at something else, but they just dont fit in to a tactical military set up. For instance, a Psyker character with a collection of useful abilities that don't lend themselves to blowing people up might be any degree of Reliable, but due to being Barely Relevant it very rarely is going to matter; they are effectively dead weight to the group in most of the circumstances they are going to find themselves in. If the character is also unreliable then worse than being dead weight, the character will often detract and distract from the purpose of the campaign.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

I see. So, reliability is merely a measure of a character's ability to measure up to the player's intentions of design. I.E. the character can accomplish what the player wanted the character to be able to do. To fufill his designed function.

 

In the military campaign hypothesis...... I would love to see a power hungry, backstabbing, black marketering bueracrat......... who worked his way up the ranks rather than fight on the field. Just to screw with everyone's heads a bit, before he went away.

 

"Ok, I transfer all the squads that are outshining you to guard duties on backwater planets. Also, I'm "accidentally" shipping you the latest in arms and armor. Now, we are even, and if I ever see you again, I will "accidentally" assign you to a freighter that is going to be scuttled and "accidentally" loose the paperwork telling anyone that you are on it."

[Killer Shrike]

Re: Character Assessment Method

 

I added a section giving exposition on each of the Millennial Men used in the example.

 

http://www.killershrike.com/GeneralHERO/HERO5RelvanceReliablity.htm#MillMen

 

just click on the link and a dropdown will open up.