>We've played almost every week for over two years, so we're well past 50
>sessions too. I'd advise anyone hoping for a long campaign not to add
>such a house rule.
>
>Sure, a Character's rate of advance can seem rapid when the Player
>spends most of their points on one ability, but that should not be an
>option in the long term; the Narrator should demonstrate how weak a
>one-trick-pony character is. A typical keyword has about 10 abilities in
>it, so in the long term it costs about 10 HP per +1 in ability, even to
>be a one dimensional warrior. To be at all balanced, the Player should
>be spending on all three keywords, costing nearer 35 HP per +1 ability.
Cannot agree with this, I'm afraid. Characters are naturally unbalanced. There should over time develop a balance within a group, but for the GM to be trying to force every character to be equally good in every situation is likely to become ridiculous quite quickly. Apart from anything else, we're ignoring the rules construct of the follower to fill obvious gaps in the PC's arsenal. I have never heard of a character anything like as balanced as Benedict is suggesting, and don't expect ever to do so. Forcing players to have such characters sounds like a lot of work to me, not to mention potentially exceedingly dull.
And even if Benedict is right, this is a moot point. For a character spending 35 hp per +1 it will take 824 hero points to reach the point where my suggested rule kicks in (at 1W2). Plus another 4hp for each ability in the cultural keyword. Thats something of the order of 200 sessions. If you really want to force your players down this extreme route, you could still use the same rules I'm suggesting and never see the difference.
I fail to see why punishing players for not adhering to some extreme idea of a balanced character is supposed to be an advantage over a rule that naturally encourages such behaviour?
Cheers,
Graham
-- Graham Robinson graham_at_... Albion Software Engineering Ltd.
Powered by hypermail