Re: Re: Character Generation

From: Mike Holmes <mike_c_holmes_at_...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 09:05:34 -0600

I think this will be my last post on this subject...

>From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
>
>And I'm not interested in the ratings, so.... you said
>you wanted to avoid negotiation between player and GM,
>and surely the background is where most negotiation
>will occur?

Avoid negotiation where its uninteresting and avoidable. What abilities are appropriate is a tad more interesting than what level they're at, and, in any case it seems unavoidable. Actually it's a pretty simple negotiation since I almost never object to an ability.

> > Oh. I was under the impression that players came up
> > with their own ratings for their abilities
>
>They can if they want to, but the numbers just aren't
>the point.

Then why not just set them all at 5W or something? That would require no math nor negotiation. Apparenly it's important enough for you to actually put some thought into it. Same here, we just use the math to get appropriate scores.

> > Just doesn't sound remotely worth it to me.
>
>But it just isn't hard.

Didn't say it was. Just that doing the math sounds easier to me.

>Easier, possibly, but meaningless. "I want to be the
>best in the group at X" is meaningful, "I want the
>first bit of plot to be about his incompetence at Y"
>is meaningful. The numbers associated with either of
>these concepts, we don't need to know until we get in
>a contest, and that might not be for another month.
>Probably 6, in the latter case.

Sure. And we set those As You Go in those cases.

Player: "Hmm. I need an ability of Scare Folks, and it should be pretty high. I've still got 15 points left from my chargen pool. I'll take that ability, and put all of my remaining points into Scare Folks."

Mike: "Coool. Didn't know he could be so creepy..."

The point system just gives some constraint so that the player doesn't continue to add on abilities indefinitely. Makes the player consider limiting the concept, and also consider taking flaws.

>I still don't think I can understand what you mean by
>that, not properly. It still sounds like a confusion
>between a character's ability to do something, and the
>player's interest in them doing that thing, yet you've
>said that isn't it at all.

I could talk about this subject all day, comparing the metagame and in-game purpose of the numbers. But my point is simply that in having a cap on abilities, you can ensure that they're not set too high in terms of in-game ability levels. The player indication of their interest in the ability, then, is how high they set the ability.

Now, could it occur that a player feels that they should set an ability high to make the character somehow "accurate" while not really being all that interested in the ability? Yes, it's possible. But rare enough that I don't lose any sleep over it. In practice a player is usually most interested in their character where that character is potent (and from a more metagame POV, the ability rating might not have to say anything about the in-game reality). In any case, we don't have the problem of ability ratings being out of range, and at worst I have to use another indicator of player interest. Which is something that's constantly happening anyhow. I'd be a fool to look at nothing other than the points spent as an indicator of player interest in their character. Just one tool.

>(nods) I seem to remember doing this myself. Lianna,
>in Shadowworld, never did spend all her creation
>points. Having a limited number of them froze me: a
>final decision on spend would potentially stifle so
>many other possibilities.

Good point. But you're the only player I've ever seen have that problem (perhaps because it wasn't the method you're used to). In any case I want players to have to decide on what the character is about. No, they can't say that their character is about every possibility. That's simply not playable. Keywords exist to ensure that there are no "gaps" in a character, no matter what you spend the points on. The points spent aren't there to ensure that the character is "right" but to allow for some customizing, and to allow the player to indicate where the character is coolest. At least from my POV. The cap ensures that the character will be "right" in terms of ability levels.

In any case, that's what HP are for, expanding the character after play begins. That is, you never really run out of points to spend. You just run out of the set that supposedly defined the character at game start. Even then I allow HP to be spent "retroactively" saying that the character "was like that all along." So there's really hardly any difference. With HP, however, there's a further constraint on spending them because you may want to use them to bump. This tension makes players consider not spending HP willy-nilly, and also not bumping on every contest. Throw out that limitation, and you throw out that tension that I find valuable.

At this point, Jane, we're talking small differences in play style. I think I've already spent too many words trying to explain it. I use the system pretty much as written, and it works great for me. You have your modification that you prefer. Great. Do we really need to be explaining why we prefer what we prefer any more than we already have? I understand your points, are mine really that opaque?

Mike



Fixing up the home? Live Search can help http://imagine-windowslive.com/search/kits/default.aspx?kit=improve&locale=en-US&source=hmemailtaglinenov06&FORM=WLMTAG

Powered by hypermail