PC Stat Min/Maxing vs. Rest of World

[sbarron]

I realize for a lot of Gms and players it seems that all characters have the same stats (ending in 0, 3, 5 or 8). If you are in this camp, you just might find this a little frustrating and unrealistic. I can certainly see where you are coming from. Almost all of the characters that any of us ever see written up have a fair amount of optimization in their design. It is the nature of character creators to try and sqeeze the most points they can into a character.

 

All characters aren't statted out this this way, however. Just the ones that someone actually takes the time to build. Obviously, there must be lots of characters out there on the bell curve that have stats ending with 1, 2, 4, 6, and 9. But the very fact that they have spent points inefficiently makes them less heroic. They didn't maximize their potential, so to speak, and that's why we aren't playing those characters.

 

Maybe it would be a good idea for GM's and Hero Games both to generally try and work some less efficient characters into their games and books. That pesky reporter, the stalwart police detective, or the troublesome mayor could all have characters that were less then efficient in their design, and not adversly affect the game one bit. It would help with the perception that everyone has the same optimized stats, and would better reflect the world of "normal" characters that I think we all agree is out there, even though we never get to see it statted out.

 

You could even use these inefficient stats as hooks for the characters. The slawart detective played football in college, so he has an 11 STR. Or the pesky reporter likes to run in her free time, so she has an CON of 12. Better than average, but not enough to make much difference in combat.

 

Thoughts?

[OddHat]

Nothing against your idea, but;

 

1) My players don't get to see npc's stats. If Detective Philips was a high school football star, I'll describe him as having the heavy build of an aging ex-athlete now getting fat.

 

2) I won't ask my players to build characters that aren't cost effective, and I don't see the need to do it myself. Maybe that's the Gamist in me winning over the Simulationist. However...

 

3) I have built characters with non-optimized stats that I intended to improve with experience, and I don't sweat over every point. I don't think my players do either. One shot characters or characters meant for tournament games are a different story.

 

Anyway, that's one view. Peace and all that.

[Tech]

Re: PC Stat Min/Maxing vs. Rest of World

 

I've already stated this in a couple other forums but I'm glad to see this idea given thought. I've been using unusual number endings for years, as have my friends and brothers. It's actually invigorating to not use the stereotypical 23 Dex, 25 Con, 13 Int, etc. Mind you, I'm not against these kind of stats. I've seen entire teams built using unusual numbers and it doesn't endear me to using them - something unnatural with entire teams like this. However, my character originally built with a 22 Dex (and 400+ experience with the same Dex) has become something of a trendsetter in the campaign. I don't know why, but it has.

 

I wouldn't say having Stats like this makes them inefficient. That sounds too much like a powergamer. I will say that it makes them a thought-out character. I've heard some say that it's useless or ridiculous to give a character a 14 Int but I disagree. It adds flavor and does contribute: you're 1 pt. higher away from having your mind read than the 13 Int guy, Dex 27 goes faster than Dex 25 on Phase 2, Con 26 is 2 pts away from getting Stunned than Con 25 and so on.

 

It depends on your players and your GM'ing style. The players will appreciate your paying attention to little details like the differences in the Stats.

 

ex. Heroes Swimmer and Goldfish have a swimming contest. Swimmer has a Dex of 25 and Goldfish a Dex of 27 and both have a Dex roll of 14 or less. Both have +8" Swimming. Both rush to the other end of the swimming pool and back. GM has them roll their Dex rolls and both roll an 11. Goldfish wins due to that last second move (higher Dex) and both heroes are congradulated by their teammates.

 

BTW, if you've never tried anything like the above, you're missing out on some real fun rping.

[Captain Obvious]

I've never had too big a problem with character stats all sitting right at the breakpoints. Besides the good points Tech has made already, a character with a 16 INT is closer to that next +1 on die rolls than a character with a 13.

 

A character that has been ruthlessly optimized takes longer to improve, game-wise. Unless you let a player spend his whole XP allotment each adventure on one stat, so that he can reach the next breakpoint immediately, he will go through all the intervening less-efficient numbers anyway. If it bothers you, just say no more than one XP per stat per adventure....

[Guest Keneton]

Heroes!

 

Heroes are optimized efficient machines. They do get the lucky break. They do have just enough to get the job done. They do get the girl.

 

So what if joey slump has an 11 INT or a 12 CON. He's not the hero.

 

I say let them be as efficient and min max all that they want. With a good set of guidelines or an Effectiveness Rating (DH #3 and free stuff) what they do is rated and cannot get abusive. Players like to win and designing efficient winning chracters is part of the fun of a point based system.

 

Keneton has a 28 Dex. This is by no means the most efficient Dex. It does give good round offs but for 2 more points (I get 1 back on Speed) I could have a 29 Dex and +1 OCV and DCV. I choose to have a 28.

 

I am all for odd stst for non combative NPC's. I'm all for odd dexes that change order of action. I'm not for making chracters inefficient to help the GM foster his world view.

[Mr. Negative]

Well, one of the things you could use to "encourage" attributes other than the "breakpoint" attributes is a house rule for "contests".

 

In any case where you have a Attribute roll or Skill roll based on an attribute competition (say Int vs. Int, or Int vs. Sleight of Hand), if there is a tie, then the person with the higher basic score in the attribute in question wins instead.

 

In any case where two characters roll BODY to determine a contest (say a Str vs. Str contest), the person with the higher basic attribute wins by one.

 

This is a really minor rules tweak, but it means that the person with an 11 Int is slightly more likely to outwit a person with Int 10. It doesn't come up very often, but the person who has paid for an extra point now occasionally gets a concrete benefit from it.

[Farkling]

That isn't a hero rule?

 

Uh-Oh....how could my old group have missed not-finding that in the book? Will they come a-hunting me now? Hmmm...thay don't actually know where I live anymore...

 

Actually, I instated that rule years ago after reading the Amber system...I thought it was only fair to the guy that spent the extra points...

[slaughterj]

Originally posted by Captain Obvious

I've never had too big a problem with character stats all sitting right at the breakpoints. Besides the good points Tech has made already, a character with a 16 INT is closer to that next +1 on die rolls than a character with a 13.

 

A character that has been ruthlessly optimized takes longer to improve, game-wise. Unless you let a player spend his whole XP allotment each adventure on one stat, so that he can reach the next breakpoint immediately, he will go through all the intervening less-efficient numbers anyway. If it bothers you, just say no more than one XP per stat per adventure....

 

Wow, it's almost like we've played together before

 

It doesn't bother me for people to uber-maximize, because my city guards, etc., usually are as well (hard to make 25pt guards without doing so). Also, as noted, I let people buy only +1 to a stat / adventure (i.e., can't get 3xp and get 3 str, but can get 1dex), so the development is more "natural", and consequently the "odd" numbers occur over time and take those who start optimized longer to get something out of their increases. Finally, there aren't but so many breakpoints, as many stats may greater and lesser breakpoints, e.g. for STR:

 

STR 11 +1 STUN (pays for itself), STR 13 (obvious), STR 15 +1 STUN and better for weapons wielding and damage, STR 17 +1 STUN, STR 18 (obvious), STR 19 +1 STUN, STR 20 better for weapons wielding and damage.

 

For EGO, where every point is harder for EGO effects to work, and:

 

EGO 11 +1 ECV, EGO 13 +1 EGO Rolls, EGO 14 +1 ECV, EGO 15 more "STR" to breakout from EGO-based entangles, EGO 17 +1 ECV, EGO 18 +1EGO Rolls, EGO 20 +1 ECV and more "STR" to breakout from EGO-based entangles

 

Similar things can be worked up for other stats.

[austenandrews]

I have to say, as a GM I find optimized PC stats to be convenient, because I can more easily stat my NPCs according to their function. Example: If I make my bad guys have a 12 DEX, I'm pretty sure most of the PCs are going to go first. If I give them a 16 DEX, I'm pretty sure they'll go before most PCs. It's easier to plot out a battle scene that way. Since I don't usually tally the point cost of NPCs, this is much more useful than the cost benefits of point breaks.

 

Also, having non-optimized NPCs spreads out the action a little better. Otherwise you get three PCs rolling off every Phase with three NPCs to see who goes first. It's worth budging from the optimal breaks just to avoid that nightmare.

 

And as Tech's swimming example pointed out, stats aren't just for determining rolls. Just as raw DEX determines the order of actions, I often make GM decisions based on other raw stats. For example, the character with the highest raw INT often gets to make the skill roll to figure out some clue, the person with the highest raw STR gets to be the one who forces open the door first, the person with the highest CON wakes up first from the Plot Device sleeping gas, etc.

 

-AA