Balance versus flavour

[Doc Democracy]

One of the things that has struck me over the years that I have played this game is that, given enough thought, I can balance the characters i my game so that they are almost equally effective in combat. No-one need feel inadequate in taking on a villain regardless of their schtick.

 

That makes me happy in that the game treats everyone the same. It also makes me concerned in that everyone is the same.

 

One of the strengths of D&Ds class system was that you knew your role in the group. In a well-balanced hero team there is not the same defined roles.

 

I was wondering, as GMs, what do you do to accentuate the distinctiveness of characters and do you do this at the expense of a bit of balance?

 

 

Doc

 

PS: I actually made 1000 posts!

[Ockham's Spoon]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

This is the constant challenge for the GM: make sure everyone has fun despite wildly varying abilities. I try (and let me emphasize "try") to create obstacles that are tailored to each characters power set.

 

For instance, your burly barbarian who can dish out a lot of damage gets to shine against the heavily armored golem because he is the only one who can easily exceed its defenses.

 

Meanwhile, the archer, who can't do as much damage but is extremely accurate takes out Smaug the Dragon because he is the only one who can hit the wyrm's vulnerable spot.

 

Then your thief defeats the necromancer not by killing him directly, but by swiping the magic gem that controls the undead army.

 

And maybe your group wizard with the firebolt spell is the only one of the group that can affect the desolid wraiths that are attacking the party.

 

The same is true for noncombat stuff; try to make sure that everyone gets to use a Knowledge Skill or Enhanced Sense or something to further the plot so that everyone gets to shine sometime. It is kind of like making sure character Disads come into play; you also have to make sure the powers they got with those points are utilized too.

 

__________________________________________________________

Some people spread joy wherever they go. Others, whenever they go. - Oscar Wilde

[Thia Halmades]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I actually read this post backwards - I heard him ask "How do you maintain variety within a generic system?" Answer! It's on the PCs, really.

 

The thing in HERO, which is in fact separate from d20, is that you can have a near infinite number of ability-granting classes. In HERO, we have no such mechanic; you want an ability, you design it, so long as it meets common & mechanical sense, etc. & so forth. Very often people coming from d20 (I myself having done it) wonder things like "How do I build a Ranger?" or "How do I import these Monk powers?"

 

You don't. You don't need too. It's not a requirement. You want to play Captain Frailty of the Mage Corps? Take the disad, "Glass Jaw: Takes 2x Stun Damage from Physical Attacks." That's more representative of a Mage than the stats in d20. In Fantasy Hero there are plenty of pre-designed sets we can follow with relative ease. We know about the whole race thing. Okay. Then we get into classes & combat. Here's where the difference starts to become apparent.

 

You, Doc, are going to play a Dwarven Nobleman Fighter. You've spent a good chunk of your 150 starting points on stats; you're strong, hale & hearty. You're a d0rf, which in my setting is a ... 0 point package, I believe. Might cost 5. You bought some Perks - Nobleman, Wealth, Family Holdings. You bought some Contacts; human traders, local miners guild, trader guild hall leader. You're now starting to have to conserve points. You buy some skills (Metallurgy, KS: Metallurgy, PS: Metallurgy, Inventor: Arms & Armor - and that's just the beginning). Then you purchase some CSLs for your chosen weapon, Dwarven Urgrosh.

 

You're an extremely well balanced RP character, with a little punch with your chosen weapon.

 

My turn. I'm going to play an Elfin Plainsman from a lost tribe. I give myself permission to do this. I'm going to reinterpret the Druid & Shaman classes & build myself a Scorpion Shaman. My people are rugged hunters, they survive off a burning desert and lack subtlety & social grace - they are barbarians in the truest sense.

 

I start off buying up stats and dealing with my Elven disads. Elf is a 5 point package, so no sweat there. I pay for it. I buy up stats to about 50. There's a 30 Active/45 Advantage cap - in other words, no more than 2d6, but you can have that 2d6 killing modified up to 1/2 in advantages total, is you so choose, to a max of 45 active).

 

First thing I purchase is a long spear, a fighting style (Scorpion Style Spearfighting) and some CSLs to go with my martial art, and the WF: Long Spear, WF: Javelin to go with it. I can now stab, throw, limb snap, dodge and roll with punches like a CHAMP. this is a major point sink.

 

Already, with Martial Arts, we have two wildly different characters. Now I start buying my 40 point Multi-Power, Scorpion Soul. I purchase a STR + DEX drain and call it Venomous Strike (Must do BODY damage, Linked, etc.) I purchase a Force Field (6/6) which is my Chitinous Shell. I then buy a Change Envrionment, Selective, No Range, -4 DCV and that's my Fear Attack.

 

Now. I am a sight to behold. I am scary.

 

Then Ockham is going to build his fighter. A human fighter from the Imperium. HE goes ahead and buys Martial Arts: Blade Style, and sinks some CSLs into it. he will also purchase a multipower, "Sword Tricks" and put "Requires a Sword Tricks Roll" on everything, and make them all OIF (Weapon of opportunity, sword only, -1). He will being purchasing abilities such as:

 

Instant Disarm.

Armor Breaker.

Shield Breaker.

Weapon Breaker.

Stunning Blow (Extra STUN)

Weaking Blow (Drain END)

 

And so on. An entirely different array of abilities than you or I have, yet we're all playing a variation on Fighter, and we're all tanks, and no one's toes are being stepped on.

 

This is very easily done in HERO, once you take away the 'idea' of generic and think in specifics.

[Kenn]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Before I ever got involved in role playing games, I read something that Jules Feiffer wrote about how fighting crime in one's own weight class had something to recommend itself. He was, however, making a sarcastic comment about the art in the comics he grew up with.

 

I went on in another post a few months ago about how I think game balance is a sham. I'd post a link, but that's proving problematic for me.

 

Anyway, as such, I'll make allowences for flavour at the expense of point balance every time. I'll try to make sure there's something for everybody to do, to feel useful, etc. because players need that.

[Chessack]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

The thing I always liked about Champions was that it does not have pre-defined roles. It doesn't force characters into such a role, and as a result, I have always found much more variety from one game to the next, than in D&D.

 

Now of course, within the group there may not be that much variety in the short term. For example, in D&D you will often have a team consisting of say, a Fighter, a Wizard, a Rogue, and a Cleric. In Champions, you may not see as stark a difference between the "Energy Projector" and the "Martial Artist" as you do between Wizard and Rogue. But... over the years, if your game group plays long enough, you'll notice that all Rogues are essentially the same, all Wizards end up learning basically the same suite of spells, all fighters end up using the same weapons (some kind of sword, usually) and armor (some kind of magic plate). On the other hand, no two Energy Projector type characters are the same. No two Martial Artists are the same... they will be very different from each other.

 

The other thing not having defined "archetypes" built into the game does, is it gives the players freedom to do unusual things or to "hybridize." D&D has a very limited form of this with things like, being a Fighter/Rogue, but even there, almost all Fighter/Rogues will essentially be the same. On the other hand, in Champions I have seen some VERY wierd stuff... like the guy whose super-power was to take newspapers, fold them into shapes, and transform them into full-sized creatures that matched the shape, and that then served him in combat (Summon, Charges, Fragile, etc).

 

In other games, the designers make up pre-existing "cool stuff" like fireball spells or swords of vorpal madness, and the players and GMs "pick" from that pre-existing cool stuff when building characters, NPCs, etc. In Champions/Hero, you can buy source books with pre-existing cool stuff, but you don't need to (and we rarely did) -- you can just make whatever you want up as you go, using the fundamental building blocks. I find this leads to far more unique and unusual (and interesting) ideas than anything the game designers of most games can come up with.

 

C

[zornwil]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Honestly, I've been lucky in that players make it happen almost always.

 

As for styles of encouraging it, I first of all don't mind if PCs overlap in roles, that can make for fun rivalry. I allow for very open-ended builds and let players experiment, I try to help them make any concept fit, even if it's something we do have to negotiate over. Like allowing Dr. Time, who could travel in time; in this case he was a bit hamstrung as he swore to uphold the "true" timeline, but it still made for interesting plot challenges given he could go back in time.

 

It actually led to a very interesting situation, if I may go on a tangent, but one that's meaningful to allowing broad player discretion. He took the team back to help find the killer of a friend's girlfriend (well, more of a nuisance-acquaintance, but still it was a murdered woman). They witnessed the murder in order to gain informatin, and it was gut-wrenching. The Necromancer character (not ironically if you understood his story but I don't want to go into that here) was sickened at the prospect and went away bitter, swearing to never again listen to Dr. Time preach about not intervening in time. The others didn't enjoy themselves, either, plus there was also a near-slip with continuity.

 

See, the focus of play here is not combat and is not affected by power levels per se. Rather, it's driven by the PCs being able to do things that the players envision would be interesting, helping drive story.

 

That being said, that's just an approach and depends on players. I would also add you can well drive of course a non-angsty scenario.

[David Johnston]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

One of the things that has struck me over the years that I have played this game is that, given enough thought, I can balance the characters i my game so that they are almost equally effective in combat. No-one need feel inadequate in taking on a villain regardless of their schtick.

 

That makes me happy in that the game treats everyone the same. It also makes me concerned in that everyone is the same.

 

One of the strengths of D&Ds class system was that you knew your role in the group. In a well-balanced hero team there is not the same defined roles.

 

I was wondering, as GMs, what do you do to accentuate the distinctiveness of characters and do you do this at the expense of a bit of balance?

 

 

Doc

 

PS: I actually made 1000 posts!

 

Well there's no real need to accentuate the distinctiveness of two characters, one of whom flies and shoots energy blasts and the other of whom benchpresses Buicks. They are already quite distinct. Even in a fantasy game, the guy who has spells is going to be very distinct from the guy with the bulging muscles and the battleaxe and both of them are going to be distinct from that little guy who knows how to pick pockets.

[Robyn]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Even in a fantasy game' date=' the guy who has spells is going to be very distinct from the guy with the bulging muscles and the battleaxe and both of them are going to be distinct from that little guy who knows how to pick pockets.[/quote']

 

"Freelance wealth redistribution specialist. Like a tax collector, only good instead of evil. I'm also a professional locksmith on the side."

 

"What? What are you all looking at me like that for?"

[Lord Liaden]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I can't give any better advice than Theron Bretz provides in his excellent article from Digital Hero #3, "Pointless Champions," which deals with running characters in the same group who are not balanced as far as point totals and power levels. Although aimed at the supers genre, where you often see the greatest disparity in power level between team mates in the source material, IMO it's very pertinent to any game genre where this issue can arise. You can view a sizeable free excerpt from that article here.

 

The key elements for a GM to remember in this situation are what Theron calls "schtick protection" - making sure that each character has at least one area of expertise or usefulness to the group that is his and his alone - and "spotlight management," or allotting each character time for his abilities or issues to take center stage.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Well there's no real need to accentuate the distinctiveness of two characters' date=' one of whom flies and shoots energy blasts and the other of whom benchpresses Buicks. They are already quite distinct. Even in a fantasy game, the guy who has spells is going to be very distinct from the guy with the bulging muscles and the battleaxe and both of them are going to be distinct from that little guy who knows how to pick pockets.[/quote']

 

Actually I think the problem is less so in lower powered games such as fantasy.

 

In superheroes there is a need to accentuate differences. If the guy who flies and shoots does similar amounts of damage to the big bad guy as the BenchpressMan then their game effects are remarkably similar.

 

I think the message I'm getting is that there needs to be a variety of challenges (including having the PCs fight villain groups rather than one big bad guy).

 

With a variety of opponents it is possible to have a patsy for everyone that they can find and a huge variety of options in how to go about the fight.

 

Out of combat it is the same - there needs to be variety. Thus it is possible (I think) to effectively balance the flavour requirements of the PCs by the provision of a suitable variety of opponents and obstacles.

 

No? If the flavour powers of the PCs are the ones that get the job done due to their applicability to the obstacles and villains in hand then there is less focus on the slowly grind out a victory (5 STUN per phase each)....

 

 

Doc

[tesuji]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I was wondering, as GMs, what do you do to accentuate the distinctiveness of characters and do you do this at the expense of a bit of balance?

 

Well first I look over the PCs for what their "roles" are, by determining what they have invested in and how it can be used to show in scenarios as distinctive. I will usually come up with multiple good traits more or less unique to the character and a bad one, maybe two.

 

Then, i design the adventure and indeed the campaign and its challenges (including villains) to spotlight those key differences, to tie in with their flavor bits, and in essense to make it "personal" and directly related to "these specific characters" not just to "a super team with a blaster, a brick, a slasher, and a ..."

 

This is not "at the expense of balance" because balance comes from the meshing of "PC traits" and "GM challenges" and while the points may serve me as a guideline they take very distant second place to "screen time" as far as "balance" between characters. I guess you could say the "points" tell me or uggest to me how important this item should be to the character's story and i do try and make sure they get "got they paid for" but not to a point of worrying overmuch.

[RDU Neil]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

 

I went on in another post a few months ago about how I think game balance is a sham. I'd post a link, but that's proving problematic for me.

 

 

I think this is a key point... and back to Doc's original post...

 

The question is, "What do we mean by balance?"

 

 

Do we mean a perfectly modeled, mathematically precise Points mean equal value?

 

Do we mean mean, characters all look roughly the same with the SFX scraped off? (I've seen games like this.)

 

Do we mean that players at the table have a balanced impact on play? (This gets into a realm that Hero chooses to remain agnostic about.)

 

 

In the end... we need to define what we mean by balance. Most of my arguments... and touching on Zornwil's thread about "relating discussion to actual play"... center around what I feel is a universal truth in RPGs.

 

The only measure of success is player dynamics during actual play. Are the players engaged, proactive, interestec, energized and generally grokking play? If so... the game is successful no matter what you are doing.

 

So to balance, do we mean that each player is grokking play equally with the others? I don't think so. Equal kinda makes no sense in that context. In the end, I'd have to say, "Are ALL the players engaged through their characters, to the extent that they are grokking the play experience?"

 

If so... you have balance. It isn't about the distinctiveness of the characters, but about the grok of the players.

[Robyn]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Do we mean that players at the table have a balanced impact on play?

 

The ultimate equality . . . not diceless HERO, but "dice don't matter" HERO, where the PC's can only have their predetermined impact on the game, no more, no less.

[BNakagawa]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Part of the solution is entirely in the GMs hands.

 

If you want to create instances where one PC is put into the spotlight, then construct villains that have vulnerabilities to their SFX (or if there are PCs with VPPs or variable sfx attacks then just build them so their defenses are weaker against the specific PC)

 

On the other side of the ledger, you can also create villains with extra defenses or levels against the powerhouses, so the others have a chance to shine.

 

On the player's side - try not to step on too many toes when you design your PCs. Sure, it's really easy to make a character with an insane amount of versatility, but I've never found that to be all that much fun.

 

I've long held the belief that it is just as valid to define a character by what they can't do or won't do. Making sure your character has limits and limitations leaves room for teammates to shine.

 

$0.02

[Vondy]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Part of the solution is entirely in the GMs hands.

 

If you want to create instances where one PC is put into the spotlight, then construct villains that have vulnerabilities to their SFX (or if there are PCs with VPPs or variable sfx attacks then just build them so their defenses are weaker against the specific PC)

 

On the other side of the ledger, you can also create villains with extra defenses or levels against the powerhouses, so the others have a chance to shine.

 

 

This is generally my method of handling this. I encourage players, or build characters when the players ask me to, in such a way that they are essentially competent, but with one expertise, and then I tailor my adventures in such a way that different characters get a chance to shine. Sometimes everyone has a scene in an adventure they get to shine in (generally preferable), or dedicate an adventure to a particuliar character's story and abilities. This way, even if the character's are widely varied in their abilities, they all get a chance to be the hero. The gamemaster has immense power in this regard, and if everyone works together at design time to ensure the character's fit the game (and the game fits the group as a whole), then that power, exercised wisely, eliminates most problems of this nature.

 

*(which has happened, with their input, a lot in my experience - I have two players who insisted I build their characters (again, with input) every time)

[Sean Waters]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

One of the best games I've ever been involved with involved quite disperate power levels. Probably. I'll explain that bit later.

 

The characters, as I recall, were as follows:

 

Rocky, an earth elemental

Fortress, a superman type

 

Both these characters were horribly tough and quite obviously so.

 

Black Mamba, martial artist par exellence, but very human

The Wereleopard - what it says, basically - very hard to hurt but not hugely offensive against superpowered opposition

 

Then a couple of wildcards:

 

Patricia the Estate Agent (yes, really) who didn't seem to be able to do very much but teleport the team and glare at people and, finally,

The Flying Nun (yes, really) who had a really impressive suite of mental powers and telekinesis

 

Basically the perception was that in a straight fight, Rocky could give Fortress a run for his money but no one else could. Mamba and Patricia would get smeared toot sweet and the Wereleopard and the Flying Nun would last a little longer, but, basically, they would be toast pretty quickly.

 

Hmm.

 

Let me tell you what was really quite unique about this particular game. No one had a character sheet. Well, the GM did, but the players didn't: they had a description of their own abilities, a picture of their character

and that was about it.

 

Even though the characters were in fact reasonably balanced, and any Battle Royale would have been a whole lot closer than most of them thought, the players' perceptions of the characters was very different.

 

They did not feel homogenous.

 

Ultimately you have to strike a balance () between having varied and interesting characters on the one hand, and having characters that can actually function together in teh same game on the other.

 

BTW, the whole team were basically 250 point characters (this was back in the day, you undersstand), and they fought some monstrously powerful opposition, from cybernetic supersoldiers to Greek Gods with a real feeling that this was exactly where they ought to be and they were not outclassed. Event though there were defintely times they should have lost, they didn't, and all because they belived in the hype.

 

Incidentally, Patricia the Estate Agent had a massive VPP and was easily the most powerful of the bunch, but the player never realised, so she spent most of her time teleporting the team around and glaring at people. Well, until the end when she traded her magics to a demon for a physical upgrade and fought and killed Fortress, taking herself and a large bit of Spain out in the process.

 

Rocky eventually merged with London and, ultimately, the whole of England, which he sunk. He is now worshipped by a worldwide priesthood who are being hunted down by the Wereleopard. The Flying Nun took over America after everything stopped dying and being born (and Etheopia beceme the only fertile place ont he planet) and her son by Fortress eventually made an almost successful attempt at world domination.

 

We had some interesting games....

 

Meanwhile, an ageing Mamba is training a new generation of heroes...

 

I think my point, if I have one at all, is that it is all perception: concentrate on the similarities and you will see lines of little superclones, but concentrate on what makes characters unique and the similarities become unimportant.

[Manic Typist]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

What kind of campaign was this?

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Even though the characters were in fact reasonably balanced, and any Battle Royale would have been a whole lot closer than most of them thought, the players' perceptions of the characters was very different.

 

They did not feel homogenous.

 

I think that my latest attempts in character sheet design might move towards that, as they describe the powers but reveal virtually nothing of the mechanics behind them.

 

In a low powered game, I had a player whose character was described as walking away from fatal crashes with barely a scratch. The player played him as if he were invulnerable (he had 12 rPD, 6rED). The player felt as if he were invulnerable but if the mechanics had been in front of him I do not believe he would have done.

 

I think the more that you can get the players playing the powers rather than the mechanics the more flavour you engender within the game as a whole.

 

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I really liked Sean's play example and Doc's discussion of approach with another play example. It raises a very interesting thought, somehow, for using HERO character design with a perhaps radically different play approach, though I'm not quite sure how to express that. I'm basically conflating these last couple points with the diceless play discussion elsewhere...

[Just Joe]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

Though I like a lot of the ideas about how to handle things after characters are already designed, my emphasis would be on the design process, which I think the GM should generally have a hand in.

 

I wrote a bunch of stuff, but I deleted it because I want to emphasize one main point. Active point and DC limits, and even guidelines, can have an undesirable homogenizing effect, particularly regarding attack, defense, and movement powers.* It may not be a good thing if the brick's punch, the MA's offensive strike, and the EP's energy blast all do 12d6. If the EP's FF gives him about the same defenses as the brick, that's worse. Even if all bricks have almost the same defenses as one another, that can be bad.

 

I recommend looser guidelines that attempt to establish a combination of balance and variety that suits the campaign. I'll give some examples, but even the ones I give become problematic if they are too standard. So maybe the speedster or MA has a higher speed and is good at taking out agents, but can't do more than 10d6. Or maybe the MA can do 12d6, but only has an 18 DEX and needs to apply all levels in damage to get up to 12d6. Maybe the EP with a big multipower with lots of 50 AP attacks while another has just two attacks: a 12d6 eb and a 7d6, 7 DEF entangle. You get the idea.

 

* Though note that even if everybody has 12d6 attacks, defenses around 30/30, and 20" of some movement power, characters can still be distinctive in combat through powers like desol, healing, and invisibility.

[Robyn]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

It may not be a good thing if the brick's punch' date=' the MA's offensive strike, and the EP's energy blast all do 12d6. If the EP's FF gives him about the same defenses as the brick, that's worse.[/quote']

 

There's another solution; partially limited defenses. Give everyone's defensive powers some appropriate "doesn't affect X" restriction, or "doesn't affect X as well", or "actually makes X stronger", and you have defenses that work more or less effectively against various attacks.

 

Or, if nothing comes to mind for X that would affect the various defenses differently, and/or the only things anyone can think of would be so rare and/or make so little difference that they wouldn't be worth a Limitation (of greater than -0 value), you can just handwave them as "common sense" and "SFX"

[RDU Neil]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I really liked Sean's play example and Doc's discussion of approach with another play example. It raises a very interesting thought' date=' somehow, for using HERO character design with a perhaps radically different play approach, though I'm not quite sure how to express that. I'm basically conflating these last couple points with the diceless play discussion elsewhere...[/quote']

 

There is another conflation here... with our conversation on design intent.

 

I would say (as much as I like them) Doc and Sean's examples deviate strongly from "what is Hero."

 

I don't want to say they are wrong. Far from it. But if Hero is anything, it is a game where 1) PLAYER control over the building of their character is emphasized and expected, and 2) Quantified, statistical knowledge of the capabilities of a character compared to the imaginary world they inhabit is emphasized and expected.

 

Now, again, I'm not ruling good or bad here. I'm saying this is the default design intent of Hero... the default play experience is built upon such control and knowledge... so diverging as Doc and Sean have done is a clear move away from such intent. It is not wrong... but it should be noted as a conscious diversion. While I think such games would be a blast, I have a much more Nar/Sim preferences. I would think a strong Gamist would dislike this because the rules are hidden, which is the antithesis of their preference.

[Doc Democracy]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I don't want to say they are wrong. Far from it. But if Hero is anything' date=' it is a game where 1) PLAYER control over the building of their character is emphasized and expected, and 2) Quantified, statistical knowledge of the capabilities of a character compared to the imaginary world they inhabit is emphasized and expected. [/quote']

 

I think in a very broad sense you are correct here. I agree, it is one of the expected tropes of HERO games. There is a openness about the balance and value of the characters that isn't so obvious in many systems.

 

In a group that can easily put that aside to take up the game rather than the system it isn't even a down side.

 

Now' date=' again, I'm not ruling good or bad, here. I'm saying this is the default design intent of Hero... the default play experience is built upon such control and knowledge... so diverging as Doc and Sean have done is a clear move away from such intent. It is not wrong... but it should be noted as a conscious diversion. While I think such games would be a blast, but then I have a much more Nar/Sim preferences. I would think a strong Gamist would dislike this, because the rules are hiddenl, which is the anti-thesis of their preference. [/quote']

 

There is an elemtn of trust involved in that. I think that a strong gamist could be content to know that the GM has used the strong point value basis of the system to balance the characters and so part of the 'fun' element for the gamist would be to test the parameters of his character and his ability to influence the game in a way that would not be possible with full revelation of the mechanics.

 

For example, in a recent game I translated a partial desolid type power with IPE shrinking and tunnelling. A gamist could enjoy testing the paramteres of the desolid ability just to determine the mechanics behind the SFX.

 

It would all rest on trusting the GM though.

 

 

Doc

[zornwil]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

I think if you had some sort of strikingly consistent resolution method a gamist would be satisfied for uncovering and playing to that game, being encouraged by a consistent reward mechanism.

 

An interesting idea for character generation would be to give players identical pools of points each of which must be dedicated to a single purchase (although maybe one could just be applied to characteristics). For example, everyone gets pools of 75, 50, 50, 30, and 15 points. So one player could put 75 into an attack, 50 into characteristics, 50 into a defense, 30 into a sense, and 15 into a movement power. I suppose those would be real points, of course you could have some sort of AP limit if desired.

[Robyn]

Re: Balance versus flavour

 

An interesting idea for character generation would be to give players identical pools of points each of which must be dedicated to a single purchase (although maybe one could just be applied to characteristics). For example' date=' everyone gets pools of 75, 50, 50, 30, and 15 points. So one player could put 75 into an attack, 50 into characteristics, 50 into a defense, 30 into a sense, and 15 into a movement power.[/quote']

 

This is done with Shadowrun.