Re: New players, NPC->PC, list method

From: Philippe Sigaud <sigaud_at_...>
Date: Fri, 08 Sep 2006 16:41:54 +0200

Mike:
> This sounds like the HW method, really. So it should work fine.
>
> That said, what I'd do in a case like this is just consider them new
> characters at the higher level of ability. Meaning that I'd give them
> appropriate levels for their keywords and some big pile of points to spend
> on raising up abilities. Recently I had a round of creating "Veteran"
> characters, and I ended up giving them 100 points to spend on abilities (no
> more than 20 on one). I think I may have been too conservative.
Hmm, the characters were created under not well understood _HW_ rules and we never used any keywords, even when switching to HQ (which changed almost nothing in the characters). Hmm, we may devise some keywords. Fact is, none of them use an official occupation, nor homeland nor magic. But creating keywords is easy. I'll propose that, thanks Mike.

You know, as the other PCs are so full of odd and funny abilities, I felt newly created PCs with keywords would be to 'clean', too streamlined, so to say.
I think I'll give them all keywords (useful to determine the level of a new ability) and also give them slots at higher levels.

Antonio:
> I think it's OK, if everybody agrees in the narrative relevance of the
> abilities (I suppose that). I've found that, if you intend that the
> players fill all the list before the game, they turn to a sort of
> gamist approach: "I've defined my PC, and I've found six relevant
> abilities; now I have four free abilities... mmm... I'll look for
> something USEFUL", and usually it is not a significative definition of
> the character. It's better to find in the game what 'new' (old)
> ability is interesting for the story (IMG at 17, but it wasn't
> high-level).
>

I agree. I hope to have them 'half-filled' or thereabout beofre the game, so as to give them some structure on which to play, but also letting them have ideas and opportunities during the game.

> In fact, last three times (two one-shot games and my current campaign)
> I've tested another system: we talk about the characters, and define
> them (the player give us an idea and people brainstorm). When the
> concept is clear, the player propose what are their keywords and
> abilities (without quantitative limits) and then, the TN that he/she
> likes. The group and the narrator control the process, looking for the
> best future story (and trying to avoid inequalities of protagonism if
> it is not intended). The method proved very succesful: people didn't
> try to do powergaming (there are no rules to distort) and people can
> play the character that they want.

I have something very close in mind. It's just, as by some strange happenstance, the already-defined PCs have almost the same repartition in TNs. So, I plan to use that as a template.

I was wondering what kind of repartition of abilities (in term of TN) people see. I thought I'd find something more 'pointy': 2-4 very high abilities and far behind, the less used/amusing ones. But no, they have abilties perfectly spread at all levels. I guess that mean they were interested (and confronted by) many things :)

  Philippe