Response to Badger 3K

[cyst13]

As far as a player choosing more disadvantages than he has spent in points, yes; I've done this myself. I don't know that I intentionally set out to load myself down with disadvantages, but this can happen inone of two ways: 1. build disadvantages first and then go back and build chars., skills, powers, etc. or 2. don't add up the point totals on the disads as you are choosing them. That's how it usually happens to me. I come up with the disads rather quickly because they flow smoothly from the character conception and you don't have to deal with power modifiers and complicated math. Before I know it, bam, I've got a an extra 10-30 points of disads. Now at this point most players would either shave to fit the point total or buy extra powers. Both options damage the integrity of the character conception. I usually just keep the extra points and let it go at that. I chose the disads because I thought they described the character well and I thought they'd be fun to role play; not because I wanted to "pay for my stuff". What many players seem to miss is that it can be as fun to play a character who has to squirm out of a tight spot due to his disads or deal with a moral conflict due to his disads as it is to play a character who sails smoothly through every situation. (Actually the former is MORE fun than the latter. If all you want to do is kick ass unimpeded, just sit alone in your your making blam! blam! noises)

 

I'm probably not ever going to convince the people who still look and roleplaying games as a series of encounters to be overcome with powers and skills, but if you ever get sick of that sort of thing, you should try games which focus on character and story. After all, if you just want to engage in combat, you could play first shooter games on your computer. Much better graphics and less math..

[badger3k]

Sorry I haven't noticed this before - I mainly looked at what I was subscribed to for the last few days.

 

Note - the following is opinion (mine, actually)

 

Interesting ideas, I'll give you that. The point that I was trying to make is that making characters that have more disadvantages than abilities is not the norm. My own way is to take the character concept and go with abilities, then work up logical disadvantages (on that side note, I often have troubles with a full champs 150 - how many hunteds or lims can you have before the characters a bowl of jello?). Most of the people I know are similar - the focus of the "fun to play" part is the abilities, with any disads second. When people think of wolverine, they think of his abilities first, then the berserker/loner bit later (if they can get past the claws). I think that by pulling the focus of creation to disads you do increase the storytelling aspect (potential lets say), but take away from it too. If I was designing a Conan-type character, I wouldn't start with his weaknesses, I'd start with his strengths.

 

I do know we disagree on the "concept" idea. I think you have probably a better view of that from an (ethical? moral? story?) standpoint, but I think mine is more practical - very few people would play a 75 point character with 150 points of disads (you may not either, or may see it as a challenge). To me that's a waste of time. While the role potential is high, I think the role-playing potential is not. Part of my view is that I am the GM - I have to keep game balance and flow and story and all that in mind at all times. I can make adventures to fit such a character, but to try to keep it challenging for all I have to challenge all. As I put it before, I can't keep one player involved while the others just sit on their hands (on the chance they do split up, I split the action, usually keeping it for no more than 15 minutes/group at a stretch). I also know my strengths and weaknesses, and have to play with them too.

 

I digressed, sorry. You're view seems to be that the concept should be pure, with the game stats reflecting that. My view is that the concept is the start, how the character works in the game is the key. Probably because I like to tinker and play with the mechanics of the game (for background, I used to buy RPGs to learn the systems, some of which I only played once or twice). So I have no real problem adjusting the concept if I need to. Like I said, if the champs character concept works out to 312, I have no problem ading a few points to a characteristic (or whatever), to get to 315 (or probably 350, since most concept have trouble fitting in to the standard game, but that's what I'm using now so I abide by my own campaign limits). Even with a 150 point max start, I usually can't do the concept in the points to my satisfaction, but thats what experience is for.

 

I don't think that any character can sail his way smoothly through all actions, unless the GM isn't challenging them. Whether a character has one disad or 100, they should all play a part in the game somewhere (though not necessarily all at once).

 

Some people try to load down one aspect of the game over the other - I've seen the "story" mode where no one rolled all night, to dice heavy "combatathons". Neither is better or worse, just different. It all depends on the group you've got - the group I have currently likes to have a story (and I prefer to have one), but the "total immersion" style of roleplay is not a big deal. If I say they see a guard at the city gate, they'll usually tell me something like "I go up to him and tell him why we're here" rather than act it out. We roleplay to keep friends in contact (as I posted elsewhere, 2 in Ky, 3 in Tx, 1 in Korea, and 1 was In but soon to be Iraq), and to relax after a long week. To us, and me in particular, a story is a series of related events with various threads running through it. I try to keep conventions with "story arcs" (multiple sessions for a storyline/quest/etc), but as I said, there isn't a lot of getting in character (we have Ren-faires for that, I guess).

 

Now that doesn't mean that there is no character or story. Unless you're meaning/usage of the terms are different than mine, which is possible. As I said, different people have different opinions. While I do like to debate (or argue as some might say), I don't try to convert anybody - I'll try to explain my position, give my reasons, and if you feel the same, cool. If you don't - cool. It's not going to make my game any different or less fun. Besides, trying to convert people implies that one method of gaming is superior - I see all sides as valid (if maybe weird or odd ), but if it works for you, who cares?

 

As for the shooters, meh - prefer the psuedo-rpgs like dungeon siege, "tactical/strategy" games like masters of orion 3, or fighters (VF4:E)/"rpg-types" like GTA:VC, FF versions, etc for PS2. Now, ALiens vs Predator 2 is fun to play.

 

Although I think you would have been more accurate to relate what you were saying to games like Everquest, which are basically quest/combat with some role-playing elements, rather than first person shooters. IMO its a closer comparison with the encounter/power-skill example. At least those have some form of multiplayer involvement.

 

Hmm - tried to make sure that my wording was not inflammatory or sounded insulting. These kind of posts can sometimes go that way. If it does sound that way, it is unintentional.

[cyst13]

reply

 

Yeah, I think the difference in our opinions stems mainly from the difference in our gaming styles. This is especially evident in the character examples you chose (Wolverine, Conan, etc.) As far as compelling characters who are remembered more for their disadvantages than their combat abilities, I would nominate Macbeth, Hamlet, Iago and a whole slew of other tragic fighters in Shakespeare. As far as superheros go, Daredevil is among the most fascinating, specifically because he is blind. I agree that trying to argue people into submission is Quixotic (Quixote is another soldier remembered primarily for his psych. disad.) and will leave this repartee at that.

 

Wish you all the best and good gaming!

[badger3k]

Re: reply

 

Originally posted by cyst13

Yeah, I think the difference in our opinions stems mainly from the difference in our gaming styles. This is especially evident in the character examples you chose (Wolverine, Conan, etc.) As far as compelling characters who are remembered more for their disadvantages than their combat abilities, I would nominate Macbeth, Hamlet, Iago and a whole slew of other tragic fighters in Shakespeare. As far as superheros go, Daredevil is among the most fascinating, specifically because he is blind. I agree that trying to argue people into submission is Quixotic (Quixote is another soldier remembered primarily for his psych. disad.) and will leave this repartee at that.

 

Wish you all the best and good gaming!

 

Same to you. It's nice to do this sometimes to get other viewpoints. I find it broadens the horizons. Thanks for the response.