> > Starting characters aren't really very good at what they do. I tend
>to think
> > of them as 17 year olds. They're only so effective because they
>have HP, and
>
>I don't agree here. I think this is 'old skool'. I am telling my
>guys they are the guys in the clan that have real potential and
>talent. They are young and they have the skill levels of characters
>with many winters behind them. If a PC is up against a guard and
>the PC is Aug'd and stat'd up to 1w3, that guard is never going to be
>15w2!
I'm not sure I see the disagreement. I've said previously that starting characters can be quite heroic. And even a 17 rating won't make the character a D&D style incompetent starting character. All I'm saying is that a 17 is a 17. It's not even "journeyman" level. So a player shouldn't expect it alone to do well. And even when they take their best rating, pile on augments, and consider HP, there are still going to be people out there who are, with their raw scores, better than they are.
Because a "starting character" is, as you've said "young". Or at least inexperienced. Again, not incompetent, or unheroic, or unable to face challenges. It just seems to me that players get the idea that the HQ starting character is somehow relatively experienced. Which is just not the case. If you want that sort of character, you need to use the Advanced Experience rules. Which I hardily recommend. Not because starting characters aren't interesting to play - but because it's the appropriate way to represent experience in a character.
Mike
Powered by hypermail