Me:
> >But that's just numbers! And the character probably
> >won't be "kosher", it'll probably have a back-story
> >that clashes with known history in our world,...
Mike:
> Let's not exaggerate. I'm just talking about the
> ratings.
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?
> I'll let the
> player know anything they need to know to make the
> character otherwise kosher
I try to, but I simply can't expect them to absorb that much background.
> (though usually in my games I'll turn the
> world over first before
> requiring a player to change their concept to fit
> the world if the subject
> matter hasn't been previously established in play).
Sure. Or even if it has been established in play. Fitting in that sort of thing is the fun part: but as I say, I can't possibly expect the player to do the fitting themselves.
> >Well of course negotiation! This is a roleplaying
> >game, you have interaction between GM and players.
>
> Just not interested in this one. I want to get to
> play now. I usually have
> players in IRC into play about hour after finding
> out that they're
> interested. Partly that's because we do "As You Go"
> chargen, but...
Well, we do to some extent, but I'd expect the basic concept to take several emails back and forth, or maybe an hour or so on Chat, as we throw ideas at each other.
> >Look, what you do is tell me what you really want.
> You
> >don't want "10W5", because that's a number. You
> >perhaps want "as good a "destined to rule" ability
> as
> >any of the other Argraths". Fine. You can have it.
...
> 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.
> (and you do say that the
> standards are out there so that
> they could, too).
For some things, yes, like comparative combat skills. The standards are right there in the rulebook. But for "destined to rule", I've never yet seen standards, I'd need to make some decisions.
> But it really doesn't matter. Somebody's making an
> arbitrary rating of an ability, and then the other
> side is approving or
> denying that, and then more "accurate" levels are
> being established, etc.
Yes. Quite possibly during play, of course.
> Just doesn't sound remotely worth it to me.
But it just isn't hard.
> Even if it all goes through on
> the first attempt, I think that the math version is
> easier.
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.
> Because in that
> case all you have to consider is what's most
> interesting to you as a player
> as an ability the power levels set themselves.
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.
> Now, yes, that means that I don't let players simply
> decide what power level
> to be at. But in practice some of them simply don't
> spend all of their
> points and end up lower-powered anyhow.
(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.
Send instant messages to your online friends http://uk.messenger.yahoo.com
Powered by hypermail