RE: Character Ratings

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Mon, 7 Jun 2004 01:39:08 +0100

>>In fact, I wonder if PC sheets should
> > perhaps ignore the initial keyword ratings once play has
> started? If
> > you need to know the rating again, take the highest three
> or four main abilities and average them?
> That would be a way to do it, since a warrior (or whatever)
> is assumed to have been doing "warrior stuff" during the time
> he hasn't been in the spotlight.

Aka "advanced experience"?

> Of course, if the player
> wants to start a new ability ("Hey, 'Repair Equipment' should
> be part of the warrior keyword, I want to buy it at my
> keyword rating") do you want him to start it at the average
> of the four top abilities? That's a decision you'd have to make.

Good point. You'd probably look at the vaguely similar skills in the keyword, if any, and see what level they are.

> > My sidekicks keep
> > telling me their backstories and trying to promote themselve to
> > alternate PCs. I think I need five or so PCs with one
> player. I would say "working as
> > a team", except that they keep arguing :(
> It's when you argue back that you have to really start worrying :-).

These are all run by me, remember? Or possibly vice versa :(

> > If an NPC decides to become a
> > follower, of either type, do they suddenly lose all their skills and
> become
> > an X-17 keyword?
> Remember that there's also allies, enemies, patrons, etc. If
> the NPC is about the same power level as the character, will
> he *really* want to follow the hero?

Probably not, but he can be quite a bit lower than them and still be more interesting than "warrior 17".

I think you're right, though, what I'm after is Allies. Far more flexibility.

NPC to sidekick:
> You might give him some
> "negative" abilities ("Hates the rest of Group", "Drinks to
> excess", Thinks he's better than everyone else", "Fawns on
> hero", etc) to balance out the extra experience he's had.

Nice! Though I'm still not sure why a rules construct that says "yesterday you were an NPC, today you're a sidekick" should alter his abilities? He's the same guy. If he was a PC, you'd just write an extra Relationship on his sheet.

> No-one says that they have to be always good for the
> character (look at Kallyr's trickster!)

Oh, I have. Believe me, I have. And even without going that extreme, clashes make for story. PBeM has the great advantage that I can write the IC for my PC and her followers having arguments, without having to resort to silly swapping of hats to know which one's talking.

> They sound like Allies to me (even if they aren't at the
> hero's level of
> expertise): have lives outside the hero's, don't always come
> when called, et c.

That's them. Even the ones with "loyal to PC W2" have ideas of their own, and sometimes get run as independent PCs.

> Once you've decided whose bothering to join the current
> adventure, you can parcel them out to the players & let them
> have "really experienced sidekicks" for that session.

That's what we seem to do, yes. Allies. I can see I need to look up allies. And forget Retainers, as "faceless" just isn't the way we do things.

Powered by hypermail