Re: Re: Character Generation

From: Jane Williams <janewilliams20_at_...>
Date: Thu, 28 Dec 2006 15:49:35 +0000 (GMT)


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

Shame.  

> >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.

Of course. A professional warrior with a decade's experience and warrior skills at 17 would be inappropriate, so would being two masteries better than anyone in the universe without some very good explanation. And they need to slot into the existing party properly, to take a less extreme example.

> 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.

Well, yes, and that ends you up with the entire character sheet being As You go, and no numbers at all on it. Which can be more or less what we do...

> 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..."

And my method would be just the same, only without the "I've still got 15 points left from my chargen pool" sentence. I'd have "go on then, describe him doing it", followed by "wow, nice writing! Want to call that about 10W, it looked that way to me?"

> The point system just gives some constraint so that
> the player doesn't
> continue to add on abilities indefinitely.

But why do you want to limit them?

> Makes the player consider
> limiting the concept, and also consider taking
> flaws.

*Consider* taking flaws? This isn't exactly something I need to do, with my lot.

> 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.

OK, understood. How do you stop them being set too low?

> 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.

Happens quite a lot with mine. Their "kill things" type abilities are high enough that we don't even bother rolling a lot of fights. The interest comes in whether they can control their temper enough to refrain from killing the guy who just surrendered. Low abilities.

> (and from a more metagame
> POV, the ability rating might not have to say
> anything about the in-game reality).

That's where I really don't understand what you're getting at. How can it possibly *not* say how good you are at the ability?

> >(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).

It is the method I'm used to, I play in more games than I run, and have the same problem in them all.

> 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.

Isn't it? Why not?

> Keywords exist to ensure that there are no "gaps" in
> a character, no matter
> what you spend the points on.

hmm, good point. I'll have to check how we're using keywords.

> In any case, that's what HP are for, expanding the
> character after play begins.

Well, yeah, there's the "oops I got it wrong" factor, and later correction.

> Throw out that
> limitation, and you throw out that tension that I
> find valuable.

Probably the most significant different then. I don't find it valuable at all, I find it to be a totally different game, and distracting from the role-play.  

> At this point, Jane, we're talking small differences
> in play style.

Quite big ones, I think, if what you find most valuable is something I'd rather not do at all, and vice versa.

> Do we really
> need to be explaining why
> we prefer what we prefer any more than we already
> have?

If we're learning from it, why not? I'm learning from it.

> I understand your
> points, are mine really that opaque?

Some of them, yes. Becoming less so, but still baffling in places.                 



Try the all-new Yahoo! Mail. "The New Version is radically easier to use" � The Wall Street Journal http://uk.docs.yahoo.com/nowyoucan.html

Powered by hypermail