8pt CSL

[casualplayer]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

I would say "Attakid, Tigereye" and put the character into situations where he had to charm the recalcitrant dilettante into being quiet while they both snuck from spontaneous firefight to impromptu gunbattle.

 

Levels are a way of players saying "This is the kind of scenarios I want to see and I'd really like to shine when they happen."

[Kdansky]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

You actually found a scenario which makes a difference. I'm impressed. *spread, spread*

[archermoo]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

You actually found a scenario which makes a difference. I'm impressed. *spread' date=' spread*[/quote']

 

It really isn't that hard, and is something I at least frequently do. Yes, it costs less to buy 1 overall level than it does to buy +1 with two sets of three skills and a 5 point level in Ranged Combat. But it doesn't do the same thing either. One give you a total of 3 +1's, the other only gives you 1. They both have their uses.

[ghost-angel]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

Having played a "normal" for over a year now, I think I'll put in my tuppence worth.

 

I have an 8-point CSL, which is almost as useful as my 10-point overall. I could argue even more useful, as I use it in combat for my character all the time.

 

My character uses "cascading" CSLs, as follows:

 

2 pts: +1 with Pistol

3 pts: +1 with 3 skills (in this case, Stealth, Bugging, and Security Systems)

5 pts: +1 with Ranged Combat

6 points: +2 with 3 skills (Gambling, High Society, Seduction)

8 points: +1 with All Combat

10 points: +1 Overall Level

 

It fits well into the character concept, as I have to constantly figure out where to put the SLs (DCV? OCV? ECV? What if I'm trying to seduce somebody while trying not to get hit?)

 

I like the idea because I have to think as a player. Sure, I'd probably be better off spending the points and just boosting the relevant stats (EGO, DEX, INT, and PRE) but I wouldn't have nearly as much fun.

 

This set of Levels tells me about the character, where he places emphasis in his life, scenarious he wants to excel at over the rest of the group.

 

I would replace that with:

 

3 overall levels: 30 pts

1 3cp level (with pistol combat): 3

total 33

 

(your combination: 34)

 

- gives you a tiny bit more combat value (with your weapon it's the same, but you get 1 more ocv for all maneuvers and you get 3 instead of 2 for all weapons and styles).

- stealth skills 2 higher, social skills 1 better

- some other minor advantages

 

- the only disadvantage: If you want to seduce and have a high DCV at the same time, you only get +3 total instead of your +2/+2. I can life with that I think

 

The problem of your layout: You buy different 3 point levels (that's already 6 points) and then add some 5 pointers, bringing the total to 11. You can just get an overall at that point.

 

This option does not - numerically equally (or superior by 1 pt), conceptually weaker.

[Kelcyron]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

<< Insert previous set of highly differentiated levels >>

This set of Levels tells me about the character, where he places emphasis in his life, scenarious he wants to excel at over the rest of the group.

 

 

<< Insert nearly-equivalent overall levels >>

This option does not - numerically equally (or superior by 1 pt), conceptually weaker.

 

Why is the character's statistics telling you where his emphasis is better than having it be in the character description?

 

Kelcyron

[ghost-angel]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

Why is the character's statistics telling you where his emphasis is better than having it be in the character description?

 

Kelcyron

 

They're focusing Mechanics in a specific direction, and only a specific direction.

 

It's one thing to say "I'm really good at..." and another thing to Show It Specifically.

[Paragon]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

It's not a 'definition' at all. I didn't say 'exclude concept entirely, bwah-ha-ha, munchkin uber alles;' I said 'champion.' Should I have said 'favor' or 'prefer' or something else to keep the rhetoricometer from being turned up to 11?

 

 

I'm sorry, but when someone uses an example that clearly ignores one of the necessary traits of what's efficient--in this case, actually being able to get the job done, which giving the ring to Boromir, who's tempted by it from the first moment involved wouldn't do--I have to assume he's playing rhetorical games himself. If that wasn't your intent, it was a really bad example to bring in. Strider wouldn't have been a bad one, but the point was, it still assumed that someone would have been doing something sensible in game or out to hand the Ring off to someone who did not appear likely to hang onto it for long, even if it wouldn't corrupt him.

 

As I said, bringing in things that work in a book because everything is going to go as the author wants, into a game, where the players can't assume that, seems to be essentially comparing an apple to an orange.

 

 

I'll not deride your snide aside. If I was out of line earlier I'm sure someone I respect will let me know.

 

Feel free. As I said, if that wasn't your intent, it wasn't directed at you, but I still stand by the opinion that most people who use that apparent tone about those who care about efficiency seem to either assume the latter are stupid, incapable of caring about characterization, or both.

[Paragon]

Re: 8pt CSL

 

They're focusing Mechanics in a specific direction, and only a specific direction.

 

It's one thing to say "I'm really good at..." and another thing to Show It Specifically.

 

Perhaps to some people's suprise, I actually agree with Ghost-angel on this one. My issue is that there's counter-incentive to doing so in many cases in Hero because of the cost of levels compared to attributes, or sometimes to higher types of levels.